Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FUTURE)

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement on the political and economic future of Newfoundland.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will be able to announce soon His Majesty's Government's proposals in regard to the economic and political future of Newfoundland.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any arrangements are in contemplation to enable the people of Newfoundland to express their views on the future constitution of their country.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): As the reply is rather long I will, with the permission of the House, give it at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Emrys-Evans: On the last occasion when the matter was raised in another place, my noble Friend, the Dominions Secretary, said that he hoped to make a further statement about Newfoundland in the near future. At that time, it was generally expected that the war with Germany might come to an end at an earlier date than now seems probable, and that we might be in a position, not only to establish, but to set in motion

machinery during 1945 to enable Newfoundlanders to examine the future of the Island and to express their considered views as to the form of Government they desire having regard to the Island's financial and economic condition. The delay in achieving victory in Europe has unhappily affected the position adversely in two ways. First, it must inevitably postpone the setting in motion of the machinery for deciding the constitutional future of the Island, for that must await the end of the war in Germany; and, secondly, it equally precludes any immediate attempt to forecast the economic prospects of the Island after the war. In view of this new situation, which His Majesty's Government deeply regret, it is clearly necessary to readjust our timetable.
His Majesty's Government have always contemplated that the further statement which my noble Friend had to make to Parliament must be a balanced one, that is to say, that it should not be confined to matters of machinery, but should deal broadly with reconstruction needs, and afford at least a starting point from which Newfoundlanders might be able to arrive at some assessment of their economic prospects in the immediate post-war period. It has been the clearly expressed view of Parliament here, and is, I think, generally recognised in Newfoundland, that, when the Newfoundland people come to pronounce on the constitutional future, much must depend on the degree of confidence with which they will be able to count on the Island continuing to be self-supporting in normal peace-time conditions. It would be unfair to expect them to come to a decision on the constitional issue without full discussion of how they are likely to stand, financially and economically, when present war-time activities cease. Indeed, a clear understanding of their economic future must be, quite evidently, an essential factor in any decisions or discussions by Newfoundlanders as to their constitutional future. But many of the factors of which account will have to be taken by them in reaching any economic or financial assessment of the Island's future are still speculative and hypothetical.
His Majesty's Government have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the wiser course would be to recognise the realities of the war situation and to defer the pro-


duction of detailed proposals until later in the year, when the situation should be clearer. My noble Friend will, in any case, aim at making a statement in good time before the moment comes for the setting up of machinery to enable Newfoundlanders to examine these questions for themselves.
Much as His Majesty's Government regret this inevitable postponement, I need hardly say that it will not interfere in the slightest degree with the progress of the Newfoundland Government's reconstruction plans for the immediate post-war period. These are now in an advanced stage and they will go forward in the normal way. The Newfoundland Government have ample funds for financing any schemes with which progress is likely to be possible in the near future, and there will be no question of any such schemes being held up while the Newfoundland people are coming to a decision on the constitutional issue. Indeed, a start has already been made with some schemes, notably those relating to fisheries development, and others are ready to be put into operation as soon as war condtions allow. Nor, of course, will the postponement of His Majesty's Government's detailed statement in any way affect their determination to proceed as early as circumstances permit with the constitutional policy they have already announced.

Petty Officer Herbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will cause some disappointment? Have the reconstruction proposals of the Parliamentary mission been favourably considered in principle and, as far as possible, in detail?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir. I am well aware that the statement will cause some disappointment, but I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the assurance that all the proposals put forward by the mission have received very careful consideration. I would also point out, however, that this is only an interim statement.

Sir D. Gunston: While appreciating the Government's difficulty, may I ask if my hon. Friend will see that, through the Press and other means at the disposal of the Government, the people of Newfoundland should realise that this is only a postponement? Also have the Government considered in detail the recon-

struction and economic proposals put forward by the Members of the Commission Government who visited this country last summer?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I can give both assurances. Every effort will be made to inform the people of Newfoundland of the statement, and also that the Commission of Government were fully consulted and sent over three of their Commissioners last summer, when the whole question was very carefully gone into.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Manufacture (Permits)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade, under what order, regulation, rule or sub-order, a manufacturer is required to have a permit to manufacture from free material for free lines.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will give me more particulars I shall be glad to consider the matter.

Exports (Licences)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what countries, in addition to Egypt, have recently been removed from the list of those countries to which all exports from the United Kingdom must be covered by an export licence.

Captain Waterhouse: As the answer is long, I will with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Territories recently removed from the list of those for which all exports from the United Kingdom require an export licence.

Removed with effect from 15th January, 1943.

Aden.
Algeria.
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
Bahrein Islands.
Corsica.
Cyprus.
Cyrenaica.
Egypt.
Eritrea.
Ethiopia.
French Somaliland.
French Zone of Morocco.
Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.
Iran.
Iraq.


Italian Somaliland.
Kuwait.
Macao.
Mandated Territory of New Guinea.
Monaco.
Muscat.
Nauru.
Palestine.
Saudi Arabia.
Syria and the Lebanon.
Transjordan.
Tripolitania.
Tunisia.
Vatican City.

Removed with effect from 18th November, 1944.

Basutoland.
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
Cook Islands.
Dahomey.
Fiji.
French Guiana.
French Guinea.
French Settlements in Oceania, New Caledonia and New Hebrides.
French Sudan.
French West Indies.
Ivory Coast.
Liberia.
Madagascar and Dependencies.
Mauritania.
New Hebrides.
Niger.
Norfolk Island.
Northern Rhodesia.
Nyasaland.
Papua Portuguese East Africa.
Portuguese Guinea.
Portuguese West Africa.
Reunion.
St. Pierre and Miquelon.
Senegal.
South-West Africa.
Southern Rhodesia.
Swaziland.
Tonga.
Union of South Africa.
Western Samoa.

As a result the only countries which now remain on the list of those for which all exports from the United Kingdom require an export licence are the following:

Andorra.
Burma.
China.
Liechtenstein.
Portugal (including Madeira, the Azores, and the Cape Verde Islands).
Rio de Oro.
Spain (including the Canary Islands and the Spanish Zone of Morocco).
Sweden.
Switzerland.
Tangier Zone.
Turkey, including the Hatay Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
or Enemy Territories.

Boots and Shoes (Old Stocks)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that boot and shoe makers

and retailers have on their hands a considerable quantity of old-fashioned and soiled stock for which the public are not prepared to surrender coupons; and whether he will authorise the disposal of these stocks coupon free below a certain defined value.

Captain Waterhouse: Traders may sell such stock at a quarter or half the normal coupon rates if they reduce their prices sufficiently. I could not agree, in present circumstances, to coupon-free sales.

Stock Exchange Rules (New Issues)

Mr. Douglas: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been called to the recent alterations of the rules of the Stock Exchange requiring, in respect of new issues of stocks and shares, a larger disclosure of information regarding the financial position of the company; and whether he has considered the advisability of introducing legislation requiring similar disclosure in respect of all securities dealt in on stock exchanges;
(2) whether he has considered the recommendations of the Council of the I.C.A. with regard to depreciation of fixed assets; and whether he will consider imposing upon companies and corporations whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange an obligation to prepare their accounts in accordance with these recommendations.

Captain Waterhouse: My attention has been called to the recent alterations of the rules of the Stock Exchange and to the recommendations of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants referred to. I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Cohen's Committee on Company Law Amendment will take full account of these matters in formulating their recommendations.

Laundries (Liability for Losses)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of laundries in limiting the compensation payable in the event of loss to 20 times the washing value of the article; and whether he will prohibit such a term applying in any case to which a zoning scheme applies.

Captain Waterhouse: I am advised that I have no power at present to prohibit the limitation referred to; and to introduce


special legislation on such a matter would, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, be quite out of the question this Session.

Mr. Hogg: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the whole justification for this condition, if any, rests on freedom of contract; and, when he compels a subject to contract with a particular laundry, has he not a right to protect that subject against the person with whom the subject is compelled to contract?

Captain Waterhouse: I realise that there are difficulties in this matter when the Government interferes, as we have to do. On the other hand, so far as I know, I have no powers to do what my hon. Friend asks, and he will know, as well as I do, that legislation this Session would not be possible.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is it not possible to achieve that purpose—of the continuance of the restrictions imposed—by way of regulation?

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir; I am advised not. I would remind the House that this regulation, although it generally appears in all the agreements of the laundries, is not, by any means, universally in force. Many laundries—most laundries, I think I am right in saying—waive it in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Leave (Rations)

Captain Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the position regarding rations and ration allowance for British other ranks on leave from M.E.F.; and whether they are adequate to prevent undue incursion into family rations.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Officers and men on leave in this country are given 3s. 4d. each a day with which to buy their food and also ration cards which entitle them to the same quantities of rationed food as civilians. This should provide them with the food they need without drawing on their families' rations.

Captain Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are complaints in regard to this matter, not only as to the quantity of food which the men can get being comparable to civilian

rations, but also representations with regard to the fact that those rations are less than Army rations, and that men cannot acclimatise themselves to different conditions?

Sir J. Grigg: If that is a general complaint, I will certainly look into it, but it is not a matter for one Service alone.

A.T.S. (Overseas Service)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in connection with compulsory service of the A.T.S. overseas, he will give an assurance that there will be an opportunity at the end of six months' service overseas for giving favourable consideration to those applicants who apply to be posted to stations on the home front.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. As I explained in the Debate on 24th January, provision will be made for repatriating members of the A.T.S. when compassionate circumstances arise after they have been posted abroad.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is exercising the minds of a large section of the general public and of parents, is that this Measure was not just a temporary Measure to meet an emergency, but was intended for garrison duty in occupied areas after the war; and is not this really a litle beyond what was contained in the Bill?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know on what the hon. Member bases his remarks. I should have thought that, if he wanted to raise that point, he had an admirable opportunity in the Debate last Wednesday.

Mr. De la Bère: That is not at all reassuring. I feel that it is quite wrong to use these girls for garrison duty in the occupied countries after the war with Germany. Why should they be conscripted?

Mr. Speaker: That is another Question.

Released Personnel (Civilian Employment)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War, what leave upon discharge is granted to Army personnel when discharged for the purpose of resuming their civilian occupation.

Sir J. Grigg: Officers and men are not discharged for the purpose of resuming their civilian occupation. When they are


released from the Army to take a specific job of national importance, it is assumed that their new employment is immediately available for them. They therefore get no notice leave.

Cigarettes (Parcels for Overseas)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large number of cigarettes sent by relatives in this country to men serving abroad fail to reach the men; and what steps he is taking to improve the situation.

Sir J. Grigg: In one case recently, when an official complaint reached us from an operational theatre, it was conclusively proved after investigation that only a very small proportion of parcels of cigarettes had gone astray. Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the particulars on which his Question is based so that they, too, can be investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY (PARCELS)

Major Keatinge: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent delivery of Red Cross parcels to British prisoners of war has been held up by the disruption of the German transport system.

Sir J. Grigg: In view of the supplies of parcels reaching Geneva, the resumption of the full issue of one parcel a week to each man was authorized late in December. The despatch of parcels to individual camps may from time to time be interrupted for a variety of reasons, of which one is the disruption of the German transport system.

Major Keatinge: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement to the effect that non-delivery is not the fault of the British Red Cross, because that view is being held by quite a number of people?

Sir J. Grigg: I am very surprised to hear that. I know that, several years ago, there was a general complaint against the Red Cross for events that were not in their control at all, but, personally, I have not heard a single suggestion for years that the Red Cross were not doing other than the most marvellous work in this respect.

Captain McEwen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long the interruption of delivery lasted?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say off-hand how long the reduction to one parcel a fortnight was in force—a few months, so far as I remember.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

White Fish (Prices)

Mr. John Maclay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Inshore Fishermen's Association protesting against the proposed reduction in prices of white fish during the summer months; and what action he proposes to take.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the representations regarding white fish prices which have recently been submitted on behalf of inshore fishermen in Scotland, and he is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food on the subject. My right hon. Friend will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

Mr. Maclay: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the interests of these Scottish inshore fishermen are very different from those of the trawler fishermen?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has that very much in mind.

Loch Sloy Hydro-electric Scheme

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the Commission's Report on the inquiry into the Loch Sloy Hydro-Electric scheme; and if he will lay a copy of the Report in the Library as soon as available.

Mr. Allan Chapman: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is considering the Report, and hopes to present it to Parliament at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE CADETS

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the falling off in the membership of the A.T.C. owing to the closing of recruitment for the R.A.F., the Government will reconsider the advisability of uniting the S.C.C., the A.C.F. and the A.T.C.


into a United Services Training Corps under a single administration with a common age of entry.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a great many people who have control of the A.T.C. feel very strongly that this change should be made?

Mr. Attlee: I think that a great many others feel that they would lose something of the close connection between particular Services, on which it has been built up, and take a different view from my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large number of people believe that, by adopting the proposal in the Question, the whole purpose and object which young folk desire, whether in the air, on the sea or on land, would be lost?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council why the three Orders in Council (S.R. & O. Nos. 1311, 1312 and 1313) which were originally Tabled in the last Session were not Tabled in the present Session having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): The three Orders in Council to which the question refers were re-laid on 5th December last. The practice as regards re-laying is that Orders in Council approving Defence Regulations are re-laid when the new Session opens for the balance of the period to be completed.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council why the Order in Council made under the Diplomatic Privilege (Extensions) Act, was not numbered in the series of Statutory Rules and Orders.

Mr. Attlee: I have no doubt that the hon. Member is referring to the copy of the Order which was laid and which did not bear its heading in the Statutory Rule and Order series in accordance with the usual practice of laying unnumbered copies of the order before numbered copies become available.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Works why no explanatory memorandum was attached to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Control of Building and Civil Engineering Undertakings (S.R. & O. No. 36 of 1945), having regard to the fact that the Regulation is not intelligible without reference to Defence Regulation 56AB.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): This Order is in similar terms to previous Orders made under Defence Regulation 56AB, requiring information to be supplied by registered builders as to persons employed. No explanatory note was included as it was considered that the purport of the Order was quite clear; the more so since the persons affected by the Order, who are in every case registered builders or contractors, are only required to furnish the information on request being made to them individually by the Ministry.

Mr. De la Bère: Does this not indicate the vital necessity of issuing an explanatory statement when these Orders are produced? Is not the Minister aware that I have previously asked for such statements to be made when Orders which are not intelligible are introduced, and that no explanation has come from the Minister at all? It is quite wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Hours of Work

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has in his possession information showing the number of hours per shift worked at the coal face in the bituminous coalmines of the U.S.A., excluding meals and travelling time; and how this compares with the average number of hours, excluding meals and travelling time, worked at the face in the coalfields of Great Britain.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Owing to the longer permissible hours of work in the United States of America and shorter travelling time to the coal face, the hours of work at the coal face in the bituminous coalmines of the United States of America are greater than in this country. It would be difficult, because of the great variations in underground conditions at individual mines, to give accurate comparative figures.

Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman obtain the figures from the United States in spite of what he has said?

Major Lloyd George: I think I could let my hon. and gallant Friend have them, and if he will allow me to communicate with him, I will do so.

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether, in view of the period since any statement was made regarding mining subsidence, he can now give any information concerning the result of the consultations that have taken place between the several Departments; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to deal with this matter or by what other means it is proposed to deal with the problem; and
(2) whether he is aware that in the recently published Report of the Scottish Coalfields Committee attention is drawn to the considerable and steadily increasing damage done to private property because of subsidence due to mining operations and which suggests that provision should be made to enable owners of such property, chiefly houses, to secure compensation; and whether he proposes, as a similar problem exists in England and Wales, to introduce legislation, or by other means, to deal with the matter.

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that the Scottish Coalfields Committee said that there was general agreement that provision should be made to enable owner-occupiers of small property to secure compensation, but the Committee went on to say that the matter should be considered on a wider plane than that of small owner-occupied property. As regards new building on sites which may be liable to damage from subsidence due to coal mining there has been and continues to be consultation between my Ministry and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. In the case of existing buildings, while I share the sympathy expressed by the Scottish Committee for the small owner-occupier, I also share their view that this is bound up with wider questions. In any case, it would not be possible in present circumstances to prepare and introduce the necessary legislation, which would inevitably be complicated and controversial.

Mr. Daggar: Do I understand from the Minister's reply that no action is to be taken by the Government upon completion of the consultations?

Major Lloyd George: I was not saying that nothing was proposed to be done; I pointed out that at this particular juncture it is a very complicated question, as my hon. Friend knows as well as anybody else, and at this particular juncture a very complicated and controversial Measure could not be contemplated.

Mr. Daggar: Am I to understand that it is not the intention of the Government to deal with this serious problem in England and Wales?

Major Lloyd George: As far as new buildings are concerned, my hon. Friend is aware that I am in consultation with the authorities responsible; as far as the others are concerned, we have been looking at the matter and, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend, it is a very difficult matter indeed, but it is not the intention of the Government to do nothing.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Questions are now being called which were called before when the questioners were not here, would you tell us why some of us are being penalised who have Questions down which are not being called again?

Mr. Speaker: I went straight down the Order Paper and did not notice that the Chancellor's Questions were finished. I think the hon. Member was fortunate, that is all.

Accidents (Statistics)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of fatal accidents and injuries sustained by miners from the outbreak of war until 31st December, 1944.

Major Lloyd George: The number of persons killed at mines from the beginning of the war to the end of 1944 was 4,363 and the number seriously injured was 15,240. Figures of minor injuries are not available for periods shorter than a year. During the five years ended December, 1943, the latest period for which figures are available, the total number of injuries involving absences from work of more than three days was 779,260. I am


sure the House will be gratified to learn that the number of fatal accidents last year was the lowest on record.

Output (Christmas Period)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what was the output of coal in the period of three weeks beginning on 19th December, 1943, during which the Christmas and New Year holidays occurred; and what was the output in the corresponding period of three weeks beginning on 17th December, 1944; and
(2) what was the rate of avoidable absenteeism in coal mines amongst all mine workers and coalface workers, respectively, for the weeks ended 23rd December, 1944, 30th December, 1944, 6th January, 1945, and for the corresponding weeks in 1943 and 1944.

Major Lloyd George: I am anxious to avoid short-term comparisons of coal-mining statistics as these can be misleading. The full figures for the fourth quarter of 1944 will be published in the near future in the Board of Trade Journal, together with comparative figures for 1943.

Domestic Supplies, London

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ASTOR:

"76. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make any further statement regarding the distribution of coal in London."

Major Lloyd George: In view of the general interest of Question No. 76 to a large part of the population of London, Mr. Speaker, I thought I might, with your permission, read the answer to the House, although the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) was not in his place in time to ask the Question. The answer is as follows:
Yes, Sir. As a result of the measures which had already been taken, despite the severe weather, the tonnage of domestic coal, distributed in the week ended 20th January, 1945, was 12,000 tons greater than in the same week last year. Last week distribution was still further interfered with by ice-bound roads which greatly hampered the use of horse-drawn vehicles and slowed up motor transport. Consequently, the full benefit of the soldiers who had been put to work was not

obtained. Even so, deliveries of coal in London were as high as in the same week of 1944. In these circumstances arrangements have been made for 125 Army vehicles, each provided with an Army driver and driver's mate, to begin work to-day, and a further 200 soldiers will be available to-morrow, making 850 in all.
I have prescribed that in London the maximum tonnage of coal which may be distributed, without licence, to any registered premises in the month of February shall not exceed 4 cwts. It is anticipated that this provision, together with the additional man-power and vehicles to which I have referred, will enable proper distribution to be restored. Cash-and-carry schemes have been instituted in 72 boroughs, at some 175 sites. These schemes, of course, should be regarded as temporary expedients to assist in meeting abnormal conditions aggravated by the prolonged severe weather. The real solution can only be to restore normal distribution to the consumers' premises as quickly as possible. I should like to pay a special tribute to the efforts of those engaged in the distribution of coal, whether regular workers or volunteers, who have been working hard in most trying conditions.

Mr. Manning: Could the Minister explain why his circulars of instruction with regard to the cash-and-carry scheme went to local authorities, whereas previous circulars have gone to the local fuel overseers? Has there been any great delay in the cash-and-carry scheme through this change of proceeding?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. Local authorities started a year or so ago, in some instances, to operate this scheme with our permission. I thought it would work very well as a whole at this time, and I am grateful to the local authorities for their co-operation.

Mr. Walter Edwards: With regard to the Minister's statement about an allowance of 4 cwt. of coal for the month of February, may I ask him whether he will be careful about statements of that description, which leave many people with the impression that they will get 1 cwt. per week, whereas in many cases, in spite of the allowance being 5 cwt. per month in the past, people have had no coal for five or six weeks? Further, is he aware that the reason why many people are not getting coal is maldistribution? Will he


devise a policy to bring about a more co-ordinated system of distribution, so that people in all areas can receive a supply of coal?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Member is aware, there is a pooling in depots. The real trouble recently in London has been due to inability in many areas to put transport on the road at all—I have personally come across this myself. That has been a great difficulty, especially in the hillier parts of London. The purpose of making the allocation of 4 cwt. for February, in London—which is a lower allocation than in other parts of the country—is to ensure that more houses are visited than would be the case if a larger quantity were allocated. While it is true that there may be some houses which have not received their supply in the past, we hope that by reducing the allowance to 4 cwt. we shall be able to cover more houses, especially as in London there are 400,000 houses which have to get 1 cwt. each week.

Captain Duncan: Does the Minister's announcement mean that in large blocks of flats, particularly the higher flats, coal will be delivered to each flat, instead of in bulk on the ground floor?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that one of the greatest difficulties we have had during the war—and one which was not absent in peace-time—has been to carry coal up five or six flights of stairs. That is the problem in London, but I am hoping, with the assistance of younger labour, to do something to remove it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does not the Minister think that the time is now opportune to tackle the question of the distribution of coal where four or five merchants deliver in the same street, where seven or eight men are, perhaps, engaged to deliver coal to 25 or 30 houses? Is this not the right time to tackle this very out-of-date system?

Major Lloyd George: I should hardly have thought that it was the right time to tackle it now, seeing what is happening to-day. But I appreciate what the hon. Member says. I do not suppose that this is a perfect system, any more than any other distribution system, but it certainly is not responsible for the difficulties in

London at this moment. It is movement which has been so difficult. It is just as difficult to move coal, as the hon. Member will appreciate, as it is to move M.Ps., a difficulty which can be seen if one looks round the House at the moment.

Mr. Cluse: Is the Minister aware that in normal conditions, apart from the present bad weather, those who have had storage capacity have had coal, perhaps by luck, while others, without storage capacity, have been without it?

Major Lloyd George: That need not necessarily be at the expense of other people. Giving to people with storage capacity the right to store in the summer has taken them off the market in the winter. As I have already said, we have, in London, a tremendous problem of 400,000 small houses, and it is vital that the diminished labour and transport should be made available to cover as many houses as possible. Had it not been for the quite exceptional spell of bad weather we have had, we should not have these difficulties.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Could the Minister tell us why this position has not been anticipated, why transport has not been pooled, and why he still allows five or six different merchants to deliver in one road? Why has he allowed this chaos to arise, whereas in other industries—the milk industry in particular—these difficulties have been anticipated, and transport has been pooled?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is slightly easier to move a small bottle of milk than a ton of coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly. I am answering the question in my own way. I take no responsibility for the weather; I take responsibility for a good many other things, but I cannot take it for the weather. How we could have foreseen a spell of weather such as has hardly been known for 50 years, I do not know. If I were in a position to do that I would be a valuable person in many walks of life. We did make provision by predicting a much worse winter than those of the last two years, but when it has been physically impossible to move even engines along railway lines, or for horses to stand up, it is extremely difficult to say that all these conditions should have been


foreseen. As regards pooling, under an ideal system it would be all right, but it would not have affected the position as it exists in London to-day.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also look into the other regions, particularly South Wales, where by reason of the weather things are pretty grim?

Major Lloyd George: South Wales is in a peculiarly difficult position because transport has been at a standstill. With regard to the hon. Member's own constituency, I think there is some special case there because of the demand for coal as the result of the weather, but I have had no serious complaints as to the result of our action.

Mr. Astor: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider having an immediate meeting with London Members this week in view of the very serious situation?

Mr. Keeling: Greater London.

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared at any time to meet those who represent an area where there are difficulties. All I am concerned with is that every assistance should be given. If the hon. Member thinks it will be of some assistance, I shall be happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL REFINING INDUSTRY

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if it has yet been decided, in order to economise foreign exchange and on strategic grounds, to establish an oil refining industry in the United Kingdom during the post-war period.

Major Lloyd George: A substantial oil refining industry already exists in this country, though the scale of its operations is at present limited by war exigencies. The question of post-war expansion of this industry is being kept under review in my Ministry, in the light of the important considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Lady Apsley: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the West country will be considered in the future

as being in a suitable position for this oil refining industry for the post-war period?

Major Lloyd George: I could not say without notice, but I would like to look into the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (METER DEPOSITS)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the conversion now taking place of houses into self-contained flats or flatlets in the South Paddington district, he will consider some alteration of the policy of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company to prevent the necessity of individual meter deposits to that company.

Major Lloyd George: I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the deposits required by way of security from prospective credit consumers by this and many other gas and electricity companies and in this connection I would refer to the reply given on 4th April, 1944, to the hon Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend. As will be seen from that reply, the powers to require security are conferred on the company by Parliament, but if my hon. and gallant Friends knows of cases of hardship, and will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the deposit demanded from these small flatlets is a high one, and that where the public respond to the appeal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the users of electricity, even if they do not consume that electricity, are actually paying for it, and cannot something be done to rectify this position?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give any particular case he has in mind, I shall be very glad to look into it.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that it is time that something was done with regard to the meter rent question, and that he promised that something should be done months ago?

Mr. E. P. Smith: What is the purpose of these meter deposits?

Major Lloyd George: Sometimes it has been known that people have gone away without telling anybody they were going, and I believe that it has something to do with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (MUTUAL AID)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any conditions are attached by His Majesty's Government to the supply of materials to the U.S.A. which prevents manufacturers in that country from exporting goods which contain a proportion of such materials.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I apologise to the House for not being in my place when this Question was called. The conditions attached to our provision of materials on Reciprocal Aid are that the materials in question should be imported by the United States Government or its agencies, should be necessary for the war effort, and should be reasonable in quantity. Requisitions are scrutinised from these points of view. Moreover, the main commodities which we provide, of which crude rubber is much the most important, are also subject to allocation by the Combined Raw Materials Board. The United States Authorities have made it clear that they accept the view that obligations resulting from the receipt of Mutual Aid should be of a reciprocal character. But, in the circumstances explained above, occasion has not arisen for us to make specific stipulations about the export from the United States of America of goods containing materials received as Mutual Aid from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Colegate: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us whether it is not a fact that the United States is exporting motor-cars, each car being furnished with five tyres, each of which contains not less than 10 per cent. of rubber supplied by the United Kingdom?

Sir J. Anderson: Obviously I could not give a specific answer to a detailed question of that kind without notice, but I think it will be clear to the House from the answer that I have given to the original Question that His Majesty's Government do not consider that they have any ground of complaint in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Industry (Finance Corporations)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the two new financial corporations to assist in the re-equipment of industry after the war, he will make some stipulation, when giving permission for the subscription of the money, that some part of the capital be offered and allocated to the general public in addition to and distinct from the few large institutions in which the general public have no stake.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I do not think such a public offer would be either convenient or appropriate.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general principle that no moneys can now be raised without permission from the Treasury, and that if the Treasury gives permission to a selected few and denies it to others, there is a very important point of principle at stake?

Sir J. Anderson: That is part of a very much larger question, and if a question is put on the Paper on that subject, I shall be very glad to give it a considered answer.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is real discrimination and is quite undemocratic, and that there is no justification for it?

Sir J. Anderson: That is real argument.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Ministers who were late have had an opportunity of answering their Questions, can those of us who have inadvertently missed our Questions have an opportunity of asking them?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot allow that; it would mean starting Questions all over again.

Mr. De la Bère: I went without my breakfast.

Mr. Quibell: The hon. Member looks none the worse for it.

War Damage (Reinstatement Costs)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an


assurance that owners of small houses which are being reconstructed on a cost-of-works basis will be encouraged to omit obsolescent and uneconomical features whilst not increasing what would have been the cost of complete duplication of the original building.

Sir J. Anderson: Where the appropriate payment to be made by the War Damage Commission is a cost-of-works payment it is primarily for the owner of the house to decide whether he will reinstate the property as it was before the war damage or will make the damage good by works which include alterations and additions. In the latter case the owner may still receive a cost-of-works payment but the amount is, of course, limited to the amount which would have been payable had the house been reinstated in its pre-damage form. In either case, however, the War Damage Act provides that the Commission shall not make any payment in respect of the reinstatement of any part which could have been omitted without detracting from the value of the house. Unless the alterations and additions are minor, the owner will be well advised to consult the War Damage Commission since the amount of the payment by the Commission may be affected.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take steps to encourage persons who are having what would otherwise be obsolescent houses rebuilt under the War Damage Act, to omit parts of the original building which would be obsolescent and therefore obviously undesirable?

Sir J. Anderson: I am disposed to agree with my hon. Friend and I will certainly take the point up with the Chairman of the Commission.

B.O.A.C. Chairman (Emoluments, Income Tax)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds emoluments of £1,000 a year, in addition to a salary of 5,000 a year, paid to the Chairman of B.O.A.C., are admitted as being free of Income Tax by His Majesty's Inspector of Taxes.

Sir J. Anderson: As I have explained in the House on previous occasions, it would be contrary to all precedent and inconsistent with the secrecy that governs

the assessment of taxation, to afford any information in regard to the taxation liability of particular taxpayers.

Mr. Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is completely unsatisfactory, and that any director or chairman of a company is entitled to charge travelling and entertainment expenses to the company concerned? Will he explain, therefore, why there should be special privilege in this particular case?

Sir J. Anderson: I think, if my hon. Friend had chosen to express his Question in rather different terms, I might have been able to give a reply more acceptable to him.

Mr. Stourton: May I have it now?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Can we have an assurance that no person is being treated exceptionally with regard expenses allowances?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, the House may certainly have that assurance.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the Chancellor's first reply, may I ask how his tacit admission of the allegation in that Question ties up with his reply to me that no civil servant is exempted from Income Tax?

Sir J. Anderson: There was no tacit admission in my answer and I am glad to be given the opportunity of making that point clear. There was a factual misstatement in the Question but there was no admission in my answer and, so far as my reply to the Question is concerned, what I stated then was perfectly accurate.

Mr. Stourton: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the subject again next week.

Servicemen on Leave (Customs Duty)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that customs duty of 2s. for every 20 cigarettes is demanded from servicemen coming home to this country on leave from overseas; and if he will cause a reduction in this high tax upon our fighting men.

Sir J. Anderson: The position is not quite correctly stated in the first part of the Question. Members of His Majesty's


Forces returning from overseas are allowed to bring in, free of duty, reasonable quantities of cigarettes or tobacco for their personal use, provided these are duly declared to the Customs. It is only where the quantities cannot be regarded as reasonable that payment of duty is required.

Mr. W. Edwards: If I give my right hon. Friend particulars of a case where duty of £2 0s. 7d. was demanded on 400 cigarettes, would he say that that was reasonable to a man coming on leave from the Middle East to spend 14 days in this country?

Sir J. Anderson: I really do not know; that will depend on the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me, I will give him an explanation.

Post-war Housing (Finance)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is considering the advisability of converting war savings campaigns after the conclusion of hostilities into a housing campaign which would enable the Government to lend money for rebuilding purposes at a low rate of interest and would also lessen the danger of excessive demands for goods still in short supply.

Sir J. Anderson: Under the proposals in the Local Authorities Loans Bill now before the House, the capital expenditure of local authorities on housing and other reconstruction services will be financed by loans at Government rates of interest and provided out of Government borrowing. If the Government in its turn is to find that finance in a sound and orderly manner, it must be able to command the largest possible volume of savings. I have already indicated the special significance of this scheme to the National Savings Movement, and I am sure that the Movement will make the fullest use of it in the savings campaign which they will undertake after the war.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not essential that national savings should continue after the war is over?

Sir J. Anderson: Quite essential, in my opinion.

Bank Notes (Higher Denominations)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any

statement to make on the proposed withdrawal of Bank of England notes of denominations above £5; and whether it is proposed to replace any part of the notes withdrawn by either £5 notes or £1 notes.

Sir J. Anderson: At this stage I do not think I can add anything to the Explanatory Note which is appended to the Regulation as presented to the House, except to say that its primary purpose is to assist the operation of the Exchange Control. It carries a stage further the action taken in April, 1943, by the Bank of England in withdrawing notes for £10 and upwards from circulation. The notes called in will be replaced by notes of smaller denominations in so far as those presenting the larger notes ask for payment in that way.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICEMEN ON LEAVE (PETROL ALLOWANCE)

Captain Sidney: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to officers and men returning on seven days' leave from the B.L.A. by the present system of issuing the special leave allowance of petrol coupons only on the production of a leave warrant to the issuing authority in this country; and whether, to obviate the loss of time thus entailed, he will consider allowing the next-of-kin of applicants for petrol to draw coupons on their behalf in anticipation of their leave upon satisfactory evidence of identity.

Major Lloyd George: I am arranging to make the issue of petrol coupons to members of the Services on leave from overseas as simple as possible and I am in discussion with the Service Departments in regard to the introduction of arrangements on the lines suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Labour if consideration can he given to suggestions of a flat-rate addition amounting to from six to 12 months' value in points for overseas service to rank in ascertaining their age-service group for demobilisation and gratuity of men and women in the Army.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): So far as priority of release


from the Forces is concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer given on 4th October to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. As regards payment in respect of overseas service, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Appendix to the White Paper.

Lady Apsley: Arising out of that unsatisfactory reply, is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable resentment there is amongst the dependants of the men and women in the Forces that overseas service is not being counted for demobilisation purposes?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think that was revealed in the answer to which I have referred, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. In view of the climatic conditions of to-day, Mr. Speaker, which have prevented so many Members and Ministers from arriving here at the usual time, and in view of the early hour at which Questions have terminated, may I ask whether you would, as an exceptional instance, call a second round?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the Rules of the House, and we have agreed that there shall not be a second round. Further, I can give the hon. Member another reason. I happen to know that some Ministers have sent their answers away, so that if I allowed Questions to be asked on a second round, there would be no answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MISSING AIRCRAFT, ITALY)

Sir Hugh O'Neill: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has any further news to give of the two hon. Members of the House who were in the aeroplane which is missing in Italy?

Mr. Attlee: I regret to inform the House that we have no further news at all. As soon as news comes, I will tell the House.

Sir H. O'Neill: Is search still being made?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.55 a.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must apologise to the House for having to take the floor again and to introduce another Bill on the subject of education, but this Bill is a necessary complement to the Education Act which the House passed last year. Its purpose is to bring the superannuation legislation for teachers into conformity with the new layout of the educational system and with the new nomenclature adopted under the Education Act itself. The Teachers (Superannuation) Acts with which hon. Members must be intimately familiar, are cast in such terms and expressions as "public elementary schools" and refer, for example, to "the service of certificated teachers in such public elementary schools." From 1st April, 1945, a date not very far distant, when the Act is brought into operation, the term "elementary" will disappear and elementary schools will no longer exist. It is, therefore, essential to bring the superannuation legislation, which so intimately affects the lives of teachers, into line with the new system.
At the same time, the Government have decided to make one or two small changes in the range of superannuation legislation and to make them in this Bill. They have decided to meet certain developments which have taken place in the range of teachers' service under the Acts as at present defined. No wider revision of superannuation legislation is designed at present. This Bill is, therefore, comparatively modest in scope, but it is fairly complicated in form. That, I think, is typical of superannuation legislation. My main purpose, which is to secure that there is conformity with the lay-out of the new Education Act, is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill. This amends the definition of "contributory service" which is contained in Section 2 of the principal Act of 1925. This Clause replaces that particular Section. Sub-section (1) is so drafted as to continue to cover all types of service which are at present pensionable. The


House will note the extension of the definition of contributory or pensionable service included in this Measure. It now covers supplementary teachers who have hitherto been pensionable under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, or, in some cases, supplementary teachers who have not been pensionable at all. I will say more about these teachers when I discuss the relevant clauses which affect their case. It should be noted at the opening of our discussion of this Bill that supplementary teachers are to be brought into the general teachers superannuation legislation, which is a very desirable step. To that extent this Bill is an important one.
Picking out points of novelty in the Bill, I will first refer to paragraphs (e) and (g), which extend the definition of "contributory service" to teachers of the mentally defective who are employed by local authorities and by voluntary associations. These have not been hitherto included in the scope of such legislation as we are considering to-day. Under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause service connected with establishments for social and physical training will be regarded as being service as teachers and, therefore, in appropriate cases they will now be able to regard their service as pensionable. That is a further extension. This paragraph, read with paragraph (f) of Subsection (1), enables the full-time service of those running youth service clubs and community centres to be treated as pensionable, whether under local education authorities or under grant-aided voluntary bodies. That is an extension of the present practice and is again a novelty in superannuation legislation. It is justice to those who perform this type of service. It is needless for me to remind the House that this type of service and these activities have now a definite and important place in the educational system of the country, a place the importance of which is being more and more realised every day. It is only justice that those who perform work of this sort, which is comparable to the work performed by teachers, should be covered by pension arrangements applicable to the education service generally.
Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 deals with educational organisers employed by education authorities. Under the present law the definition of "organisers" is some-

what restricted. It means organisers, to put it in amateur language, who supervise other teachers, and only the service of those who organise and supervise other teachers, such as an organiser of training in physical training or domestic subjects, can have their service treated as pensionable. This refinement is rather too restricted for modern times. It is, therefore, necessary for us to extend pension rights to the service of those experienced teachers who are seconded for other forms of organising work. I have particularly in mind the organisation of the school meals service. The definition of organising service is slightly expanded by Clause 2 (1). Under Sub-section (2), which is a further extension, those employed in an organising capacity by grant-aided voluntary bodies, including the youth service, are also covered. Therefore, the House will see that there are certain extensions simply to cover those whose range of service may be regarded as falling within the education service and who perform duties not dissimilar from those which teachers perform.
Clauses 3 to 6 primarily relate to supplementary teachers and they occupy about one-third of the Bill. Their incredible intricacies conceal an act of justice to the supplementary teacher. I will attempt to explain their contents in language as simple as possible. In passing, it may be said that this act of justice to supplementary teachers is only a further example of the manner in which the Government have attempted, not only in the Education Act, but in other ways, to try to improve the lot of teachers. There are a number of women, mostly in the rural elementary schools, who have no specific educational qualifications, but who help out, assist and supplement the teaching staff, particularly in the smaller schools. These women have never been regarded as teachers for superannuation purposes and their service and description have come under different names. It is the object of the first Schedule of the Bill to make clear what class of teachers we have in mind in the description under these Clauses. For many years latterly supplementary teachers have been serving under the Code. They form a limited class, some few thousands in all, and they serve under general arrangements approved by one of His Majesty's inspectors. Their numbers are declining and in due course they will disappear as a


name and as a class of teacher. I think it therefore all the more incumbent upon us at this stage of pension legislation to look after this army of women who have put in years of work and become more or less permanently established. The new definition of contributory service, unlike the omissions of previous pension legislation, will therefore extend to cover the supplementary teacher.
How are we going to calculate the back service, and the payment of contributions in respect of such back service, if we are to make a proper scheme of pensions for these teachers? With absolute clarity Clauses 3 to 6 explain the arrangements we have in mind. The first point which hon. Members should fix clearly in their minds is that a considerable proportion of these supplementary teachers are contributors under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and are therefore pensionable under that Act. But not all supplementary teachers are pensionable under that Act, and I will give the House an example. Some of these supplementary teachers work in voluntary schools, in fact many of them do. I explained that they are chiefly to be found in the small rural areas. In these cases, in order to enable them to become pensionable under the Local Government Superannuation Act, a resolution has had to be passed by the local education authority under whom they work applying the local government Act to them, and this has not always been done. Moreover, under the present system such a resolution would apply only to service in a particular school and would not necessarily cover the whole of a teacher's service if she is transferred from one voluntary school to another. Thus even when a supplementary teacher has been pensionable under the Local Government Superannuation Act it has not been possible to ensure continuity.
We now propose to make things clearer and fairer all round. I will explain the matter by taking first those who are contributors, or those who within the previous 12 months have been contributors under the Local Government Superannuation Act. These will continue to be pensionable under that Act unless they elect to transfer to the teachers' superannuation system, which this Bill gives them an opportunity to do. A teacher who elects to change over to the

teachers' superannuation system will be entitled to receive out of the appropriate local superannuation fund the contributions which have already been paid in, so the teacher then holds the contributions in her hands. To secure that back service counts for pension the teacher must pay the appropriate contributions under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1925, in regard to any service subsequent to the date, 31st May, 1922. That is taken because it was the date of initiation of our teachers' superannuation legislation. The employers' contributions in respect of such service are to be counted subsequent to 31st March, 1928. The House may well ask why that should be the case. It is because the employers' contributions only started then, the early pension legislation including only the payments by the contributor and not by the employer.
So we have the two dates of 1922 and 1928 established. Where the teachers transfer direct from the local government superannuation scheme to the teachers' superannuation scheme the local education authority employing the teacher will, in lieu of the employers' contribution, pay the Minister from the local superannuation fund the normal transfer value payable on the passing of a local government officer from one authority to another. In all these matters we have the transfer value, and the equivalent will be the same as if a local government officer passed from one authority to another, minus the contributions, to which I referred just now when I said the teacher would have her contributions in her hand, paid back to the teacher, but provided that the sum paid to the Minister does not exceed the contributions otherwise payable by the employer under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1925. The reason for this is that it would clearly be illogical if the amount exceeded the sums laid down under the teachers' superannuation scheme. We have, therefore, linked up quite clearly the system of the local government Act and the position and option which such a person can take.
So much for the position of the supplementary teachers who have on 1st April next, or within the preceding 12 months have, been contributors under the Local Government Act. Their case, as the House will see is comparatively simple and easy to understand. But some supplementary teachers have never been contributors under that Act. Some,


owing to a break in their service, may not be so contributing when the Act comes into operation, and have not been so contributing within the previous 12 months. These teachers automatically become contributors under the Teachers' Superannuation Act on 1st April, 1945, and their service thereafter is contributory and pensionable. Such a supplementary teacher will be able to count her back service if she pays the requisite contributions on any service subsequent to 31st May, 1922, the date previously established. Rules which we propose to issue will provide that such payments can be made interest free if they are paid within a two-year period. We are, of course, including that provision because it will obviously be difficult for such persons to find their back contributions, and we propose to include this concession in the rules to help them to do so. It will similarly be necessary for the employing authority, that is the local education authority under whom the teacher was employed when she was first entitled to apply for back service to be counted, to pay to the Minister the employers' contribution—we have been considering the teachers' contribution—for all such back service, wherever rendered subsequent to 31st March, 1928, the date already established for the payment of employers' contribution, as is to be reckoned for pension. Employers' contributions will rank as expenditure of the authority for grant purposes.
It is clear that some supplementary teachers will find difficulty in paying their back contributions, and I am sorry that we have to insist upon this as part of the scheme. I have to do it because, on examining with some care the pensions legislation, I find that the same problem arose in 1925, when certain teachers were disqualified under the School Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1918, and were brought within the scope of the Act of 1925. The view was then taken that as contributions had been paid by all teachers since 1922, the initial date which was established, it was impossible to forgo the need for paying past contributions where the service was brought in retrospectively. Had such a concession been made it would have prejudiced, and probably imperilled, the whole contributory basis of the superannuation scheme.
Therefore, while hon. Members will agree that it will be hard for such teachers to find their contributions, I think it is necessary, in the interests of the scheme as a whole, to insist that these back contributions shall be paid. I indicated that there would be some concession, that if these contributions were paid within two years, there would be no question of interest. What will be the position of the teacher who cannot pay within two years? Such a teacher will be permitted to pay by instalments, except that after the two years' period we shall have to insist on interest. During the further period of her service she will pay by instalments, with an ultimate adjustment, if necessary, on the allowances payable when the pension is due. This represents an Amendment of the existing law with regard to superannuation legislation by the introduction of an important class of teacher who render valuable service, namely the supplementary teacher.
I think that having covered broadly the extent of the range of Clauses 3 to 6, it is only necessary for me to mention, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, certain other amendments of the existing law which are of definite advantage to teachers. Let me take, for example, Clause 7, which provides that teachers returning to service from retirement shall not find their pension prejudiced, as is the case in rare instances under the present law. This is a point to which teachers' organisations attach considerable importance. Perhaps the post to which a teacher returns carries a lower salary than that which the teacher had previous to retirement. Therefore, when the pension is reassessed on an average of pay over a five years' period, which is the rule under the Pensions Act, the ultimate pension is lower than the pension to which the teacher was originally entitled before coming back to do further service.
Under the Bill, by an Amendment included in the Second Schedule, we shall be able to make adjustments about the disallowance of pensions. I would explain this by saying that the superannuated teacher may take up employment, other than contributory employment, paid for from Government sources, or grant-aided from Government sources. If the salary and emoluments of the new work of a teacher are not less than the retiring salary, the pension is suspended. If


it is less the pension is reduced so that the total received is not more than the previous salary as teacher. I think this is right as a general principle, but the present situation is that the actual wording of the present law, in both the Superannuation Acts of 1918 and 1925, is liable to impose undue hardship on teachers. The salary at retirement is taken for this purpose as the actual salary exclusive of unpensionable emoluments. The remuneration of the new employment includes any emoluments with salary, and the result is that the total earnings in the new employment, together with any pension allowances which are permitted, may be less than the salary and emoluments which may have been received at retirement. I shall be able, under the terms of the Second Schedule, to mitigate this hardship. The way I shall mitigate it is by using the Minister's discretion as to disallowances, and that may make this provision a good deal fairer for teachers.
One other point of direct educational value, as well as of pension interest. Under the present law the teacher is allowed absence from contributory service for a year, and provided that he or she pays the full 10 per cent. of contribution, this period can be treated as contributory service, and there is no break in contributory service qualifying the teacher for pension. This present position allows the teacher to transfer to other work to gain experience. During the passage of the Education Act I often referred to the desire which was in the Government's mind that teachers should be given the opportunity of widening their experience, and of gaining some new experience in other branches of life. Contact with different aspects of life will be of assistance, I think, in stimulating the work in the schools.
Moreover, we want to offer teachers the opportunity of secondment to gain educational experience outside teaching itself, and a year's absence might be too short a term in which such experience can be gained. It may be valuable, for example, to gain experience of schools broadcasting. I do not think that would be of much value unless it went on for longer than a year, perhaps for as long as three years. There may be other forms of work which a teacher may want to undertake to widen his or her outlook. This is all the more necessary in view of the immense range

of educational opportunity provided under the Education Act. We have accordingly included an Amendment to Section 2 of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1937, which hon. Members will find on page 16 of the Bill, allowing the discontinuance of contributory service up to five years, provided that the contributions are paid in full, and the Minister is satisfied that the new work will give further experience of value to the teacher who is undertaking such work. In this way we very considerably extend the concession available under present legislation.
I think that this explanation covers sufficiently the points raised by this Bill. If I may sum them up for the purposes of clarity, the Bill contains a revision of nomenclature, and a definition of contributory service in order to meet the new layout of Education established by the Education Act, and it deals with certain extended forms of teachers' service, notably those of organisers and those employed in the youth service; in this case we do not neglect those working for voluntary associations any more than those working for voluntary authorities. It then deals in more detail, in Clauses 3 to 6, with the position of supplementary teachers, both those who have been, and are, pensionable under the Local Government Superannuation Act, and those who have not had that opportunity. This is a simple act of justice to an important section of teachers. Finally, we seek to amend the law in some minor details, so as to make things fairer, both for the teacher to go away from teaching service to gain wider experience, and for those, for example, who come back to teaching and find that their pension is reduced by reason of their return to perform more service. These are the main amendments made in the course of this Bill.
I hope that if the House is, as I believe it is, ready to give a Second Reading to this Bill, hon. Members will feel they are extending more widely than is possible at present, the beneficent effects of pensions legislation for the teaching profession, a profession which so much deserves such attention. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be only too glad, with his wide experience of this subject, to deal with any matters that may be raised in the course of the Debate. I commend the Bill to the attention of the House.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I believe this is the first occasion on which my right hon. Friend has appeared in the Parliamentary legislative arena since he became Minister of Education, and I should like to tender him my congratulations. I desire to give a guarded welcome to this Bill—a welcome because it extends the scope of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, brings in classes of persons who are not at present in receipt of superannuation, and generally widens the scope of pensionable employment, something which I think every Member of this House will welcome. I have to be guarded, because I am not sure whether the Bill in fact achieves all that it sets out to do. As my right hon. Friend admitted, the Bill is complicated, highly technical, and sometimes even obscure. I know my right hon. Friend did his best to clarify many of the provisions of the Bill, but unfortunately his speech will not be attached to the Bill, and when it becomes an Act, ordinary persons will have to interpret its very complicated phraseology. I do not blame the Parliamentary draftsmen. I recognise that, particularly in this case, legislation by reference was necessary. If we had not had legislation by reference, possibly the Bill would have been even more complicated. But it is unfortunate that a Measure of this sort, which will have to be interpreted in most of the town-halls of the country, should be as obscure as this Bill is.
The House will be prepared to take this Bill to-day very largely on trust, relying on the beneficent motives of my right hon. Friend, but I hope we shall all examine it closely before it completes its next stage. Clause 1 of the Bill brings in supplementary teachers, and as I understand it, a supplementary teacher is a teacher who is neither certificated nor uncertificated and who does not teach special subjects. I should have thought that any teacher was either certificated or uncertificated, but that only shows the complexity of the subject. Apparently there is a class of person who is neither certificated nor uncertificated, and these are the people who are to be brought into the scope of the Bill. I understand that to be a supplementary teacher one has to be a British subject and vaccinated, and that is all—[Interruption]—and a female. I should like to ask my

right hon. Friend who is to reply whom he has in mind in Clause 1 (1, g)? This says:
as a teacher of such kind as may be prescribed employed by a voluntary association which is in receipt of contributions in pursuance of a scheme in force under subsection (2) of section one hundred and two of the Local Government Act, 1929;
I thought my right hon. Friend, in opening, said he had in mind persons who were teaching in schools for mental defectives. When I consulted some friends of mine who are highly qualified to advise on this matter, they suggested it might apply to teachers in community centres or clubs. There is a very wide difference between those places and a school for mental, defectives. This does show the obscurity of these provisions. Of course it can mean either, or both, or neither. I have tried very hard to make out to what sort of teacher this was meant to apply, and I feel that perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give a further explanation.
Then again in regard to Clause 2 (1). I would like to ask what kind of a person the Minister has in mind. It is apparently a person who is not to a substantial extent concerned with control or supervision of teachers, so it is not an inspector or any person of that kind. I would be glad if my right hon. Friend would explain this I see that the qualifications under Clause 2 (1) and (2) are one and the same thing. They are both persons who are to a substantial extent involved in
the performance of duties of an organising or advisory character
and so on. But, apparently, the person employed by the local authority has to have three years' previous teaching experience. Exactly the same type of person employed, not with a local authority, does not require to have any experience of teaching. Can my right hon. Friend explain why that should be so? Why is a higher qualification required for the same duty in respect of a person employed by a local authority, as compared with a person not so employed? Why, in any case—even if my right hon. Friend can satisfy the House that it is essential for a person employed by a local authority to have had three years' teaching experience—must it be three years' previous experience? Why is my right hon. Friend so rigid about it?
My right hon. Friend gave as an example a person who is organising a meals service as one of the persons who might come within the terms of Sub-section (1). Why is it necessary for such a person to have had three years' previous experience of teaching in order to organise a meals service? I should like to quote a case which I believe my right hon. Friend may have heard about, of a person who has not qualified under previous legislation, being required to have these three years' teaching experience. This was a man trained as a secondary school teacher at Cambridge, who subsequently did two years' full-time service as a teacher, and after that, was employed by the London County Council in connection with its technical institutes for a number of years. He then came back and did one year's part-time teaching at Cambridge. That person's service has not been recognised as three years' service because, I understand, although the Board, in its regulations, is not obliged by Statute to do so, it insists upon three years' full-time service, and one year of the three, in this particular case, was not full time. I had hoped that while my right hon. Friend was dealing with anomalies, he would have dealt with a case like this, and would have given himself the power to exercise some discretion, so that he could have recognised such service as I have described as the requisite three years' teaching service. I hope that the Minister will look at this question and, at any rate, give himself the right to exercise discretion when he thinks it should be exercised.
Then we come to Clause 2 of the Bill. I would like to know whether Clause 2 will cover employment as a clerk to the governors of a maintained school, or the secretary of such a school. If it does, then I would submit that it is probable that the clerk or secretary who is employed in a maintained school would, in any case, be covered by the local government superannuation scheme, but the clerk or secretary of an aided school would not be so covered. Neither, of course, would he be covered by the existing Teachers (Superannuation) Act, because neither of them would normally have had the three years' teaching experience before becoming the clerk or secretary to such a school. I would ask that, in both cases, the

person concerned should come within the provisions of this Bill, whether he be employed in a maintained or aided school. I, therefore, ask that Clause 2 be very carefully scrutinised, in order to remove the anomalies which I have set out, to get rid of the difference between employment by a local authority, and similar employment not by a local authority, and to ensure that the clerk or secretary to school governors will come within the scope of the Bill and will be treated alike, whatever the type of secondary school in which they are employed.
Under Clause 6 (1) and, I think, 6 (4) of the Bill, a local authority is required to pay to the Minister lump sums in respect of employers' contributions, in cases where the supplementary teachers exercise the option conferred upon them under Clause 5 of the Bill. The Minister has made some concessions to teachers who have to find these lump sums. I submit to my right hon. Friend that, in many cases, the local authority concerned will be a small, poor authority and may have some difficulty in raising the lump sums required in respect of supplementary teachers, and I hope he will see his way to granting them similar facilities, for paying over a period, if necessary—and only if necessary, of course—as he is giving to the supplementary teachers. I think that something like the same arrangement for the local authority would probably meet the case—two years without interest and, subsequently, by instalments with interest if the Minister is satisfied that by demanding lump sum payments it would impose an undue burden on the local authority.
There is one other thing to which I would like to refer. Throughout this Bill there is a reference to matters which the Minister will prescribe, and to rules and regulations which he will put into operation. Is it proposed that these matters will come before the House at the same time? Some of them are rather important; indeed, they may go to the root of the Bill, for upon the way in which the Minister prescribes, depends the manner on which the Bill is interpreted. Therefore, I hope the House will have an opportunity of seeing something of the manner in which the Bill will be put into operation by the Minister of Education. I do not think that anything I have said really goes to the root of this Measure. There are a number of things which, by reason of their complexity, I thought it necessary to bring


to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt he will be able to reply to them to the satisfaction of the House. May I repeat that I have very great pleasure in welcoming this Bill?

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I wish to raise one or two questions about this Bill which are still not clear to me. Perhaps, at the outset, I might say that this Bill shows the very great range of educational service which now comes under the educational authority, and I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken was somewhat mystified because of it. He mentioned, for instance, mental deficiency. He has only to look any week in the educational papers to see that there are about a dozen different jobs, quite outside teaching, which now fall within the scope of education. Therefore, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has developed provision for these other persons, and I noticed that recently, in a speech, he went so far as to say that the Act, especially Section 53, was
a charter of co-operation between statutory authorities and voluntary bodies.
He went on to say afterwards that
the voluntary organisations had won their spurs in the second world war,
and that
the new Act was out to encourage variety and voluntary effort.
It was, therefore, with complete surprise yesterday that when I rang up a number of voluntary societies, I was informed that they had not been consulted about this Bill. I read the Bill with what care I could and then asked the voluntary organisations if they had any comments to make, because I happened to be interested in these bodies, and because they are doing a job at the present moment, without which there would be an even greater wastage of adolescence—and heaven knows it is bad enough—than is at present going on in the poorer parts of London and elsewhere.
I wish that my right hon. Friend had consulted them over the recent circular dealing with junior clubs for young boys and girls under the age of 14. I can only repeat what they said to me, that they were not officially consulted. Again, there has been a recent circular—both of these circulars I commend, as I commend this Bill—on community centres in which there is a very considerable portion deal

ing with the activities of youth. It seems to me to be a very important matter, and I will say why. There are men and women coming back from the Forces now who, in my opinion, would be admirably suited for work among youths in many ways who would be better at this work than at ordinary formal teaching. It is very important for them to know what chance of a career there is going to be in the next five or ten years.
This superannuation scheme is admirable, as far as it goes, for these voluntary persons; but it is very difficult for them to know exactly where they stand, because many of them have already got schemes of their own. Sometimes such schemes take care of only a portion of the staff—only the administrative staff. I rang up two or three club leaders this morning, and I was told that this was one of their greatest problems, and one which is very much on their conscience. They are employing people, but they cannot tell what is going to happen, perhaps, after five or six years. The point is, how do they fit into this scheme? In most of the contributory schemes, which are worked out, I suppose, by insurance companies, there are clauses by which they can break at a certain point, and receive a lump sum. There are other clauses under which they can get a lump sum on marriage. If some of them contract into this scheme, as I understand they will be able to do, the whole actuarial basis of the schemes of voluntary societies may well be upset.
There are a number of other problems on which I cannot pretend to go into detail; but some of them could have been avoided if there had been further discussion. That is my only point in raising this question of practical and concrete co-operation with the voluntary societies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), I am still a little vague about the types of persons covered. I did just intervene, when my right hon. Friend was opening, to ask whether those persons who were jointly employed by an authority and a voluntary society would be included in this Bill, and I gather that the answer was "Yes." There is a large and increasing number who are partially paid by voluntary societies and partially by the local education authorities.
How many of them does the Bill affect? It is very difficult to estimate the number but from the fact that about £18,000 is


to be spent by 1950 I calculate that there will be about 1,000 workers, who are paid about £350 a year. What is the prospect that my right hon. Friend is holding out? Does he expect to see a largish increase in this type of work? Does he expect the Bill to cover 500, or 800 and will they include people in young farmers' clubs, workers' educational associations, and scouts? Apart from the persons who are whole-time organisers, or trained psychologists employed by local education authorities, with whom is the Bill meant to deal? It is important to know the range of the voluntary workers covered in the Bill. In a community centre would the warden and the assistants in educational settlements be included in the Bill? I raise this point because it looks to me as if, whatever the Measure might say, there will be this partnership; indeed, my right hon. Friend has recently given his confirmation to the existing arrangement, which is a marriage between statutory and voluntary authorities. If this is to continue it may cover an even wider range of educational effort.
I am extremely glad to see the five years discontinuance. Suppose a teacher goes into voluntary work—of course, it is paid voluntary work but it is for a voluntary organisation—and he or she stays there for two or three years and then comes back to teaching work. I know of one such teacher who is working in Youth Service Volunteers concerned with forestry camps. She is a trained teacher with practical experience, but she prefers to do this work for three or four years. I gather that she will be covered by the Bill. I am very anxious that there shall be a career for persons who are to be what I might call "in and about" the teaching profession, such as organisers, teachers, and workers in accredited voluntary associations. I agree with the National Union of Teachers that they must be trained. They may want to go for a social science degree at a university, and be there perhaps for two or three years, but they will not do it unless they can see the hope of a real career.
I beg my right hon. Friend not to miss this great opportunity, which may present itself this year, of men and women coming back from the Forces, who could, with a year's training, go into this form of youth organisation. After three years in it they would be very good persons to

take part in it in the county colleges. The Bill, modest though it is, contains possibly far-reaching considerations and I would commend very much what has been done. I only hope that in future there will perhaps be greater practical co-operation with those who are carrying the very heavy burdens in the voluntary organisations.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Cove: The two speeches we have had from this side of the House illustrate the difficulty of discussing the proposals of this highly technical Measure. I was once regarded as a sort of half-time—or half-hearted—expert on the subject of teachers' superannuation, and I once had the job of writing a dictionary about it. I do not know whether there is anything more complicated than this subject. I do not want to discuss the details of the Bill, because that can best be done in Committee, hut I want to say that the Bill is welcomed, as far as it goes, by those who are interested directly in the teaching profession. It extends the scope of the Superannuation Act, and is a step forward towards completing what I now see to be the pattern of the teaching profession which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is a contribution to that unification of the profession which I believe he sincerely desires.
I am glad that supplementary teachers are at last brought in. Will the Bill encourage or discourage the future number of supplementary teachers? If it tends to give stability and prospects to supplementary teachers in the future, and therefore, to increase their number, that will be bad. We want to do justice to those supplementary teachers, who have rendered service in the schools, but I believe it is time to end the supplementary teacher system in the schools of this country, I believe that most hon. Members will agree with me. Those teachers have found their places in the rural areas. The rural children have had to suffer from the female who has been vaccinated. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will set his face against in creasing the supply of supplementary teachers, but I would like to have an assurance from him on that point. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get his Bill through with unanimity.

12.56 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: Like other hon. Members who have spoken I welcome the Bill as setting right a good many irregularities in our present system, but, as we have already heard, some irregularities persist. I am very much concerned about such an elementary thing as a definition of supplementary teacher. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us a definition when he replies to the Debate. For instance, must a supplementary teacher be employed full time? Another question is: Do all the men and women in respect of whose salary a contribution is made by the Ministry, come under the superannuation scheme as amended? If we could have an answer to that question, many difficulties would be cleared away. Lastly, I do not understand the explanation given about the individual who went back to teaching after he had retired. I would like to know on what principle those people are treated differently from any other kind of State servant.
For instance, the Indian civil servant who, on full pension, comes back to this country and takes up a university post under the University Superannuation Scheme, in Britain, receives full pension from the Indian Civil Service and full university pension in addition, not to mention salary, during the time he is working. Perhaps I am asking a difficult question, but I should like to know why there should be difference of treatment between those two classes of people. Notwithstanding those difficulties, I welcome the Bill. I was very concerned to hear the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) depreciate the work of some of the supplementary teachers. Some of them may be poor in quality, but most of those I know are as good as teachers trained at college or university.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I cannot claim the encomium of the Minister for hon. Members as being familiar with all the details of teachers' superannuation, but I am familiar with one point which was contained in Section 6 of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925. My right hon. Friend will know that I tried to amend it during the passage of the Education Bill, but the Amendment was outside the scope of that Measure. The Minister himself now proposes an Amend-

ment in this Bill; I want to know if it achieves the object which I then had in view. It appears to me that Clause 1 which has the effect of reducing the pension of teachers who have returned from retirement to scholastic duties, was dictated by the conditions of a period when there was an excess of teachers. We are not in that position to-day and for a number of years to come there will be a great shortage of teachers. At present, it acts as a deterrent to teachers in returning to take up duties in schools.
Has the Minister power, under the proposed Amendment, to disregard the salary and emoluments mentioned here, simply on the ground that he wants to encourage the return of teachers from retirement to school? The amendment which he proposes says that the Minister may disregard such salary and emoluments if it would be "inequitable" for a superannuation allowance to be suspended or reduced. Does that cover the point that I desire to raise? I can well imagine that it might have to be taken to the courts to be settled. Is it the Minister's intention at least to see that no teacher suffers in his or her pension by coming back to school? I am not competent to speak about the rest of the Bill, but it strikes me, on a superficial reading, as a very good administrative Measure. It is only by the exercise of considerable Parliamentary skill that we are able to get a Second Reading Debate at all.

1.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): My right hon. Friend must feel very gratified by the reception which has been given to this Bill. It is clear, from the large number of technical questions that have been asked, that Members have read the Bill with great care. I will do my best to answer the request of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) for a definition of a supplementary teacher. Perhaps if I answer that question first, I shall be able to deal with some of the other points with greater ease. A supplementary teacher is a woman, over 18 years of age, who can exhibit the signs of successful vaccination, and who is approved by His Majesty's inspector as an appropriate person to teach in a school. That is the definition. These teachers were known 40 years ago as "Article 68's," because


they were then employed under Article 68 of the code. They are an inheritance from the worst days of the elementary school system. A great many Members of this House were educated by them. I was. One of the ladies who educated me, under Article 68 of the code, still survives; and I regarded it as one of the great achievements of my life when I secured for her a pension, under the Local Government Officers (Superannuation) Act, 1922. At present these people are pensionable, in certain cases, under rules made under the Local Government Officers (Superannuation) Act, 1937; but, owing to the way in which those rules were drawn, the legislation applies to them most unevenly. I directed the attention of the House to that problem on 29th March, 1939, when we were considering an amendment to the Act.
This is the amazing position at the moment. If the woman has always been employed in a council school, she can bring in the whole of her service; if she is now employed in a voluntary school, it will depend on the good will of the local authority towards voluntary schools and voluntary school teachers whether they will pass a resolution establishing her post for the provisions of the Act. If she has spent all her time in that school, and the authority will pass such a resolution, the whole of her service can be calculated for pension purposes, but if she has spent part of her time in that school, and part of her time in some other school, only the part which she spends in the school she is in when she retires will count for pension purposes. Very shortly after I was appointed to my present office I had this amazing case brought to my notice. There was a woman employed in a voluntary school, in respect of which the local authority had passed the necessary resolution. Within a month of the time at which she retired owing to the age limit, that school was transferred from the voluntary managers to the local education authority, and became a council school. It was the same school; the children, teachers, and all turned up to the same building; the establishment was carried on exactly as it had been before; but, in spite of that, she lost the whole of her pension rights, and merely received back the contributions she had paid. That, clearly, is the kind of anomaly that ought to be rectified. We

take the position in this Bill that the various arrangements mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister ought to ensure that these women shall get as wide a range of pension benefits as it is possible to secure for them. I hope that they will avail themselves very largely of this opportunity. I think the arrangements we have made will enable them to come into this scheme.
Where they are in the local government officers' scheme, they can consider whether it is better for them to remain under that scheme or not. I think the two schemes, actuarily, are about equally valuable, but there is the advantage about the teachers' scheme that it allows a lump sum on retirement, with a reduced annuity, which may make it attractive to some women who desire on retirement to incur a capital liability in the way of providing a home, in which case the teachers' scheme is probably more helpful to them than the local government officers' scheme. Under the teachers' scheme, the annuity is calculated on 80ths, but they get a lump sum, while, under the local government officers' scheme, it is calculated on 60ths for contributory service and on 120ths for non-contributory service, but they do not get the lump sum. It will be a matter of choice for them which scheme they prefer to come into. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) asked whether their numbers would be increased. We intend that there shall be no future recruitment of this class of teachers. That is one of the reasons why we have been able to bring them in. He and I recollect some of the controversies about bringing in even the uncertificated teachers under the old Act. There was some resentment among qualified teachers against bringing in supplementary teachers. Now there is to be no more recruitment; and there will be no reason why we should not act as generously as we can to these survivors. Their numbers have been substantially reduced in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) asked a number of questions, in giving what he called a guarded welcome to the Bill. I observed the guard rather more than the welcome in the earlier part of his speech, but he gave us a few very generous words at the end, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy him


on most of the questions that he put to me. He asked who would come under Clause 1 (1, g). This extends the definition of contributory service to cover the service of teachers in occupation centres which are under the management of local voluntary associations for mental welfare, who carry out various statutory duties for local authorities under the Mental Deficiency Acts, and who are aided by local authorities. It also covers the service of home teachers under such associations under home training schemes. Those are people whose work is very similar to teaching. Taking the broadest possible view of the education service, they are generally within it, and we desire, on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), to recognise the very much wider scope of the education service to-day, compared to what it was when the first Teachers' Superannuation Acts were passed. Then it was asked why we should require a higher qualification for a person employed by a local education authority than for a person employed by a voluntary association. That is not quite the way we approach the question. There are certain people, such as meals organisers—who happened to be chosen by my right hon. Friend the Minister—who normally ought to be in the local government officers' superannuation scheme, but on occasions it is desirable that a teacher should be seconded to this work. She may be more capable as an organiser than as a teacher—I have known such persons—and it may well be that she ought to come over to organisation, for the benefit of the service.
What we want to avoid is getting somebody into the teachers' superannuation fund who is not in the teaching service at all, and who is not engaged on work that is cognate to teaching. So we have fixed the minimum of three years' teaching service, to qualify her to remain in the teachers' superannuation fund, if the local authority decide to employ her as a meals organiser or in some such capacity as that. It is quite clear that where a person is employed by a voluntary organisation in some way that links up with the education service sufficiently for us to recognise the connection, that person may have had no teaching service at all and may be in no other superannuation fund—because the kind of people that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmar-

nock mentioned as being in superannuation schemes are a very limited minority of the people so engaged at the moment. I am afraid that the case he brought to our notice must be one of those cases of detail of which you cannot expect the law to take notice.

Mr. Lindsay: I was referring to 300 or 400.

Mr. Ede: I am very surprised to hear that there are as many as 300 or 400 people engaged by voluntary associations who are in superannuation funds. I am not denying it; if the hon. Member has informed himself, I will, of course, take his word for it. If they are in such numbers as that, it may well be that we ought to examine the position. But I shall be very surprised to hear that the number runs into three figures. I hope that that explanation of the difference between the two Sub-sections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham drew attention will be sufficient for the House.
I do not think that one could expect that the clerk or secretary of the governors of a school should be covered. If it is a maintained school, clearly they ought to be in the local government scheme, if they are whole-time people. This reminds me that I should add that the definition of a supplementary teacher is that she must be employed whole time. If it is a question of the clerk or secretary to an aided body of governors, very rarely is that a full-time job. I know that, occasionally, where the secondary school has a very wealthy foundation, sometimes the estate is so great that it justifies the employment of a whole-time clerk. I am myself, for instance, a governor of Whitgift, and we have a whole-time clerk, and I have no doubt that some of the other wealthy schools of the country have whole-time clerks as well, but I think they should not be regarded as being within the ambit of this Act.
May I say, with regard to the other points raised by the hon. Member, that we have consulted the local education authorities about this Measure and we have secured their assent to it. They did not raise the question that they would like to pay these contributions over an extended period of time. As from 1st April next, all these authorities will either be county boroughs or county councils, and, though there are occasions when they come along and tell us how poor they


are, I do not think they would like it, it we suggested that they could not raise the small sum of money required. I am sure that the county council of which my hon. Friend is a member would regard it as a great insult if we suggested to them that they could not raise the money in the case of the very few supplementary teachers there may be in some of the voluntary schools of London.

Mr. Cove: They have not any.

Mr. Ede: There used to be one or two in the voluntary schools, but they may have disappeared. I hope so. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked if the voluntary bodies were not consulted. I am bound to say that we thought that this Measure was quite sufficiently commended to the House by its intrinsic merits. We are very anxious, as the Minister has shown by his speeches, to act in the closest co-operation with them. We have, in fact, greatly benefited in many ways during the past few months by the preparations which we are jointly making for the new Act, and I am sure that, in so far as this Measure applies to people who are employed by them, it will assist them in the work they are doing in the country. We do not, of course, make grants to individual branches of the Young Farmers' Clubs, the Workers' Educational Association and the Scouts, but some of these voluntary associations we assist by direct grants to their headquarters. It will be a matter for consideration, in those cases, whether the people whom they desire to bring into the scheme are, in fact, employed in conjunction with the education service or not.

Mr. Lindsay: This is precisely the point which it seemed to me might have been discussed earlier. I have no doubt that these discussions will go on, but I do not take the figures lightly, because, in one voluntary association, there are 60 people involved.

Mr. Ede: After all, we are greatly helping them by extending this Measure. Before I was in office, I was frequently approached by teachers who wished to transfer to that form of work, and who asked my advice on whether they should go or not. The one question which one had to ask them straight away was: Are you sure that you are going into a solvent superannuation scheme, and that you will be able to make arrangements whereby, when you reach retiring age, you will not

be worse off than if you had remained as a teacher? By assimilating the two schemes in the way we are doing, we are removing that great difficulty and opening up to these voluntary associations a very much wider area of recruitment than they might otherwise have had. My hon. Friend also asked me about a teacher who left the teaching service for two or three years to go into such a thing as forestry. Quite clearly, that lies within the five years discontinuance of teaching, and, no matter what our relationships may be with the voluntary association, if the teacher is working, she will be able to pay her contributions and the employers' contributions and remain in the scheme.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the University of Wales, and also by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Thomas), we desire to end the anomaly whereby a teacher, by returning to service, may, in fact, have his or her pension reduced, and it virtually means that they will be assured of the original pension, when they retire a second time. After all, the example quoted by the hon. Member for the University of Wales of a retired member of the Indian Civil Service who took a university post is not quite germane, because a university pension scheme is not a Government superannuation scheme, and, they are entitled to make such rules as they like.

Professor Gruffydd: There is one question which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered. Will all men and women, in respect of their own contributions and the contributions made by the Minister, come into the superannuation scheme?

Mr. Ede: I cannot think of a case where they would not, but the question is a sweeping one and somebody may produce an exception, and I will undertake to have it examined and let my hon. Friend know the answer before the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: I am not quite clear, from Clause 2 (2), whether these people are being brought into the scheme compulsorily or not.

Mr. Ede: The Minister has to be satisfied with respect to the services. Rules will be made, and, if the Minister is satisfied, the persons will be admitted. I do not know whether my hon. Friend means whether a person will be compelled, against his wish, to go into the scheme.

Mr. Lindsay: Will it be a condition of service?

Mr. Ede: Surely, it will be for the voluntary body which employs the persons, whether they make it a condition of service and apply to the Minister. After all, these people are servants of the voluntary association, and not of the local education authority or of the Government, and I should have thought that, if the association desired the post to be established, they would make it a condition that the person taking that post would come into the scheme if the Minister approved of that person.

Mr. Silkin: Will the rules be laid before the House?

Mr. Ede: May I say that that, again, is a question on which I know the House is very concerned, and I will give my hon. Friend an answer before the Committee stage of the Bill? This Measure, in one part of it, merely changes the nomenclature, so as to bring the superannuation Measure into line with the altered phraseology of the Education Act, 1944. It next does a long-delayed act of justice to these supplementary teachers, whose salaries have never been high, whose work has quite frequently been very hard indeed, who have taught in places where education, sometimes, has not been too highly regarded by people who might have made the lot of these women easier. Lastly, it does enable us to take into account the wider extension that education is now occupying in the mind of the country and in the public services of the country. I thank hon. Members for the practical way in which they have discussed the Measure, and hope to have their further co-operation in getting the Bill through Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Mathers.]

Committee upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the definition of con-

tributory service for the purposes of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, to extend the enactments relating to the superannuation of teachers to certain persons employed in connection with the provision of educational services otherwise than as teachers, and to make other amendments of the law relating to the superannuation of teachers and such persons as aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required to be so paid (whether in respect of expenses incurred by the Minister of Education or otherwise) by reason of any provision of the said Act relating to the service which may be reckoned for the purposes of the enactments relating to the superannuation of teachers, to the persons who may qualify for benefits under those enactments, to the relationship between those enactments and other superannuation schemes, to the repayment of sums paid on account of contributions under those enactments and of interest upon such sums, and to the employment of teachers and other persons after benefits have become payable to them under those enactments;
(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Education in respect of or in lieu of contributions under the said enactments, other than sums paid on account of contributions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898; and
(c) to authorise any charge upon the Consolidated Fund which may be occasioned by any amendment of the said Act of 1898 relating to the definitions of "recorded service" and "certificated teacher," "—(King's Recommendation signified,)—[Mr. Butler.]

Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grant in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.

1.30 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I do not think that it is necessary for me to make any very long ex-


planation of this Supplementary Estimate. It simply represents a slight revision of the estimates of local authorities in an extremely difficult year. That is revealed in sub-head C.1 and D.1 which refer respectively to elementary education and higher education. There have been slight increases due to such questions as the provision of meals and increased costs which have occurred during the year and, in particular, due to an increase of 25 per cent. on salaries of uncertificated teachers, a reform I announced some time ago. The other sub-heads are interesting, for example, D.2, in so far as it represents grants for the training of teachers and indicates that the training of teachers is getting more and more under way. This has particular reference to the fact that certain training colleges now need extra assistance due to the fact that the Ministry of Labour has released certain persons, particularly women, to make a start on teacher training. We are very much indebted to voluntary training colleges for the immense amount of work they do in training teachers. They actually far exceed the number of local education authorities' training colleges and capital grants are to be made to them.
With regard to Youth Welfare (Social and Physical Training), this item indicates a slight increase on what was anticipated, but this is very important work to which reference has been made in a previous Debate this morning. These are the main items of new grants in this Supplementary Estimate which almost balances because the Appropriations in Aid coming from Superannuation accounts of teachers and employers almost balance the extra estimate for which we are asking. It is for a very small sum and I think it right it should be laid before the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI BOARD OF TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including a grant in aid.

1.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): This Supplementary Estimate is to cover the expenditure likely to be incurred during the remainder of the financial year of the Council of Industrial Design. The appointment of this Council was announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 19th December. The task of the Council is to encourage the improvement of design throughout the manufacturing industries, and thereby stimulate the sale of British goods, both at home and in markets overseas. The former Council for Art and Industry, which has now given place to the new Council, has done much useful work of a survey nature. A good deal of excellent work has also been done by various voluntary organisations in this field. The new Council, it is expected, will be able to bring all this work to fruition. In order to enable them to do this it will be necessary to have a certain amount of fully paid staff and to have a certain amount of money to spend on carrying out the objects for which it has been formed. The £4,000 asked for the Supplementary Estimate will be sufficient to cover the expenses likely to be incurred this year. The Committee will see from the Estimate that the new money required here again is practically negligible as there is a saving from another account which has been brought to aid.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £940, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education and research, agricultural marketing, agricultural credits, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages, certain grants in aid, and remanet subsidy payments.

1.35 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): May I briefly explain to the Committee one or two points about this Supplementary Estimate? Under sub-head F £645 is asked for in consequence of loss incurred on


land settlement in relation to the Department's small holdings and arises from the fact that, after five years of postponed maintenance, expenditure on upkeep has been higher than anticipated. Income, on the other hand, as represented by proceeds from rents and building loan annuities, etc., is about what was expected. With regard to Sub-head I, "Land Drainage," the major portion of this additional sum of £10,000, is asked for to meet more claims than anticipated in respect of the improvement of agricultural drainage work under Section 16 of the Agricultural Act, 1937, carried out in the interests of food production. The balance of £2,100 is for work on arterial drainage schemes on the Rivers Kelvin and Annan not provided for in the original estimate.
With regard to J.1 "Agricultural Education (grants)," the sum of £3,000 arises from a proposal to adapt a building at the North of Scotland College farm to accommodate young dairy cattlemen undergoing short term courses of instruction there. The expenditure by way of capital grant is recoverable from the Development Fund. Sub-head J.3 which deals with "Agricultural Education (general)" is required for two purposes. In the first place it is for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the marginality of land in Scotland. We have a good deal of marginal land farming there and we need more comprehensive information particularly with regard to future policy. Secondly, the money is required to increase the data which we have been collecting on the economic conditions of farms generally. Since 1928 we have been keeping records of farms. At present the economics of 430 are analysed annually and we desire to raise the number to 750. Sub-head J.4, "Agricultural Research" is required for four purposes—first, in aid of the cost of a byre to be used in connection with Mastitis research; secondly, to meet the cost of providing advisory officer service in connection with the proposed investigation into the Aphid (green fly) scourge which we have had particularly in the Lothians where there are large areas of market gardens; thirdly, to establish a centre for sociological and economic investigation, advisory and experimental work in the Western Highlands under the direction of Dr. Fraser Darling; and fourthly, to provide £500 to meet preliminary expenditure in connection with

the establishment of an artificial insemination centre for livestock.
Sub-head L.3 provides for a grant of £200 to the Agricultural Security Corporation payable under Sections 2 (2) and 8 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, to enable the corporation to issue loans at a rate of 3½ per cent. as against the charge hitherto of 4¼ per cent. That explanation covers the main points. The vote before the Committee offsets certain appropriations-in-aid, and the actual increase asked for is £940.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,980,000 be granted to His Majesty defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): This Supplementary Estimate arises from the fact that more people have been receiving pensions. The number who received pensions throughout the year ending 31st March, 1945, was originally estimated as 1,300,000 and the number is now estimated to be 1,364,000. The number of pensioners was estimated as 1,520,000 and is now estimated as 1,595,000. That made an extra sum of £2,664,000 but £644,000 was an over-estimate of the pensions which were increased by the Regulations that came into force on 17th January, 1944. It was thought that the average payment would amount to about 16s. 2d. the former payment being 13s. 9d. and it has been found that the average is about 16s. and, therefore, the sum of £2,664,000 is thereby reduced by £664,000. In addition, there is the appropriation in aid in respect of refunds of over payments and recoveries of £20,000, and that brings the figure to £1,980,000.

Sir Herbert Williams: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how many persons there are in receipt of supplementary pensions?

Miss Horsbrugh: I did say, but perhaps I did not make it quite clear. The number of pensions is estimated to cover 1,595,000 pensioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS I

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): This Supplementary Estimate is necessary on account of the post-war plans for recruitment to the Civil Service. These plans were fully debated in the House before Christmas and in connection with them some little increase in staff has been found necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS III

IRISH LAND PURCHASE SERVICES

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, in connection with land purchase in Northern Ireland, and the expenses of management of Guaranteed Stocks and Bonds issued for the purposes of Irish land purchase.

Orders of the Day — CLASS X

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (WAR SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Peake: This and the remaining Supplementary Estimates are purely technical in their purpose, which is to obtain authority to appropriate receipts on certain token Votes. The original Votes for these Services are all in the same form—a gross total of £110, Appropriations in Aid £10, leaving the net sum of £100 to be voted.
As hon. Members know, the actual expenditure on these Votes, which are all for purely war purposes, comes out of the Vote of Credit and the passing of the Estimates by the House of Commons gives formal authority for this procedure. But as regards receipts, the position is that under the Appropriation Act of the year Departments can only appropriate in aid of their expenditure receipts up to the limit of the amount shown in their Estimates, and that in these particular cases would be £10. All the rest of the receipts of the Departments would have to be paid into the Exchequer. If this were to be done there would be a very undesirable swelling of both the revenue and expenditure sides of the Exchequer Account. It is much more appropriate and convenient that the receipts should be used by the Departments towards their current expenditure. These nine Supplementary Estimates accordingly ask for authority to use the receipts in this way and thus reduce the issues from the Vote of Credit, instead of paying them over to the Exchequer and increasing Vote of Credit issues to a similar amount. The reason why we have to leave the matter until now, instead of dealing with it at the original Estimate stage is the virtual impossibility of estimating the volume of the receipts until near the close of the financial year. The Committee has approved the procedure in all the previous war years.

1.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I have listened to what the Financial Secretary had to say, and he has said it very lucidly so far as the brief went. But I really think we ought to know a little more about this, because here, under the pretence of voting £90, we are doing something which I do not quite understand in respect of—if my arithmetic is right—about £730,000,000. I have heard of a gentleman in the City who went to gaol through this kind of process. I am not assuming that the very distinguished team of Under-Secretaries, supported by a Scottish Whip in front of me, have themselves been guilty. Nevertheless, I really think it is rather monstrous that this document should be issued with no explanation of what is the source of all this money. If, Mr. Williams, you will allow me——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I think this is quite a narrow point and the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the sources of the money now.

Sir H. Williams: I am not dealing with a question of policy, whether we ought to have the money. The original Estimate was £110 with an appropriation-in-aid of £10. That was in the Estimates which were ultimately incorporated in that great Act of Parliament we passed at the end of July. The revised Estimate has gone from £110 to £21,000,110 and the appropriation-in-aid has gone from £10 to £21,000,000. I am not dealing with policy, I am not entitled to do so, but I am entitled to ask these great administrators I see in front of me how they have succeeded in reaching these figures. Even the best Scottish system, to which we have voted a little money now, would not turn £10 into £21,000,000 in the course of some six or seven months. Not even rabbits in Australia——

The Deputy-Chairman: The largest possible sum that can be discussed is £10. The other point will arise at different stages, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will use his ingenuity to find a way to raise it, but not now.

Sir H. Williams: But what we are being asked to vote is £10.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Sir H. Williams: We are also approving of a new Estimate. It says so. These are Supplementary Estimates, and we are told that the original Estimate, which was incorporated in the Appropriation Act passed last July, was for £110. We are now——

The Deputy-Chairman: The other sum comes out of the Vote of Credit and the hon. Gentleman really cannot talk about it now.

Sir H. Williams: The £21,000,000 comes out of the Vote of Credit?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Sir H. Williams: I am glad to hear that, because the Financial Secretary said that the whole object of this was that it should not come out of the——

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that was the £10.

Sir H. Williams: I have not the Financial Secretary's brief in front of me, but what he said was that it was desirable to carry through the process in this way because appropriations-in-aid come within the Department and, therefore, it would not be necessary for the £21,000,000 to be issued out of the Vote of Credit. May I ask my right hon. Friend to read to us again the note he had on that?

Mr. Peake: What I explained was that this is a technical device in order not to make it necessary for the wartime receipts of these different Departments to be paid into the Exchequer Account. They are, instead, appropriated in aid within the Department and the result is that the Exchequer Account is not swollen as it otherwise would be, by the inclusion of these receipts on both sides of the Account.

Sir H. Williams: That means the expenditure does not come within the Vote of Credit.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, it does not.

Sir H. Williams: But that is the consequence, because my right hon. Friend said that the receipts on both sides will not be swollen. You do not put this money into the Exchequer, so the revenue side is not increased; and you do not increase the other side, which is the Vote of Credit expenditure.

Mr. Peake: May I explain——

Sir H. Williams: I am only saying what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Peake: —to my hon. Friend that the Vote of Credit money is placed at the disposal of the Department to cover their necessary expenditure——

Sir H. Williams: I understand that, but I want to come back to the statement of my right hon. Friend. He said that the purpose of this technical transaction was to prevent the money being paid into the Exchequer——

The Deputy-Chairman: I am very sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion, but this is a formal occasion for passing this £10, and I am quite sure that to go into the details, as the hon. Member wishes to do, he will either have


to bring a special Resolution, or raise it on some other occasion. This is a pure formality as I am given to understand the position.

Sir H. Williams: I am not arguing with your Ruling, Mr. Williams. What I am arguing is the statement made by the Financial Secretary. In moving this Vote he made the specific statement that the effect of this technical transaction is to reduce the issues from the Vote of Credit. I would ask him to look back at his notes, the part which he did not read out.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now drawing my attention to something which has been said. In all probability I was a little too slow in noticing that, possibly, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said rather too much. I am sorry if that was the case but, in any case, the hon. Gentleman cannot continue his argument, because it is outside the scope of the present discussion.

Sir H. Williams: We cannot consider the policy involved in this?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, definitely not.

Sir H. Williams: What I meant by policy was what is stated here:
This Estimate is presented in order to obtain Parliamentary authority for the application of the receipts realised in connection with these Services as Appropriations in Aid of the expenditure thereon, the issues from the Vote of Credit being thereby correspondingly reduced.
So the question of policy which arises—which is debatable—is whether we are to permit the Departments, nine of them, not to put these moneys into the Exchequer, in which case we shall learn more about them than we are going to learn to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am sorry but it really does not come in under the present Vote of Credit; it is another thing altogether. If the hon. Gentleman will look in Standing Orders, No. 238 of the Manual of Procedure, he will find it says:
The committee of supply can reduce estimates of expenditure, i.e., can refuse to grant as much as the Crown asks for, but cannot reduce or discuss the application of appropriations in aid, these not being sums demanded by the Crown, but sums, actual or estimated, received from other sources.
That really puts the position clearly and

we really must not go on with the discussion.

Sir H. Williams: May I just put this point? If the Committee says "No" to the £10, then the £21,000,000, or whatever the sum is, will have to be paid into the Exchequer and the £21,000,000 will have to be paid out of the Vote of Credit. The effect of our vote to-day is to decide which thing is to be done. If the proposal is rejected, then the effect of the Motion before the Committee becomes inoperative and therefore the Vote of Credit will have to provide the £21,000,000, and this sum will have to be paid into the Exchequer. That seems quite conclusive.

The Deputy-Chairman: That really is a question of accounting, as I understand it, and we cannot go into the larger sums here. I am quite decided on this point, and it cannot be ruled otherwise.

Sir H. Williams: I am still not quite clear. Suppose we reject the proposal now before the Committee, which we are entitled to do for we are not bound to accept this proposal. The Government have proposed that £10 shall be voted in a certain way. If we reject that proposal, £21,000,000 inevitably will have to be provided out of the Vote of Credit and £10 less than that will have to be paid into the Exchequer. That is an inevitable consequence of the proposal before us. Surely, a proposal which has certain effects if carried, and certain other effects if not carried, must be debatable on the merits of the effect of the proposal? I do not see how that can be argued.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is a matter of accounting and we cannot discuss it. This discussion does not enable hon. Members to go into wider fields, much as some of us might like to do so.

Sir H. Williams: But if we do not give the money, a certain consequence is produced; if we do, another consequence is produced. Surely, the merits of an "Aye" and "No" Vote must be debatable? I do not understand it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has great difficulty in understanding, as it is a complicated matter, but I think we really must keep to the position laid down in the Rules of the House, that we cannot go into the wider issues of the second and third columns at the present time. It is


not the occasion to do it, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to leave it at that.

Sir H. Williams: I will bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, that we cannot go into the details in the second and third columns, but they contain the only new matter before us. The first column was before us some time in the Spring, and if our Rules of Order result in the fact—and as you have given your Ruling they must—that we are debarred from discussing the purpose of the Government in handling the transaction in this way, then the only conclusion I can come to is that we must take steps to amend the Rules of Order. It seems to me monstrous that the Government can adopt a certain policy in handling their finances which may have the effect of concealing from Parliament, and therefore from the public at large, the nature of those transactions, and we are debarred from discussing them. I realise that to the full, but it raises a very important point of procedure.

The Deputy-Chairman: The whole point is that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to change the Rules of Order, he must do it by a Motion, and this is not the time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES)

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Health.

MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of War Transport.

MINISTRY OF WORKS (WAR SERVICES)

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Works.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (WAR SERVICES)

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the cost of the war services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT [26th January]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944

Orders of the Day — CLASS I

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,215, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate Departments, and the salaries and expenses of certain Ministers appointed for special duties.

Resolution agreed to.

BATTALION COMMANDER (INQUIRY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."——[Mr. Mathers.]

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: In the early part of December I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War asking if he would cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances under which an officer, of whose name he had been informed, was relieved of his command of a battalion, or take steps to ensure that the charge of inefficiency against the said officer was expunged from his record. The right hon. Gentleman, in a written answer, replied:
This case has already been made the subject of full inquiry in connection with the officer's appeals under Section 42 of the Army Act, his rights under which he has now exhausted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 376.]
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I sought this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House some of the details of the case, a very long and complicated one. I will try to bring to the notice of Members the more salient features, because I think that when they have heard them they will feel that a serious injustice has been done to the officer concerned and, further, that it is against the public interest that any officer should be treated as this officer has been, in a manner calculated to sicken him of the Service and make him talk of resigning his commission. We have to remember that for many years to come in this

country we shall want the services of all the experienced Regular officers that we have got.
The officer in question, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. C. Rose, now a major, is a Regular soldier with 16 years' service, and, until he was branded as inefficient by his brigadier, a man with a distinguished and unblemished record. He was gazetted in 1929 to a famous regiment, and after some years with a battalion, during which he gained distinguished certificates for signalling and gunnery, he was transferred to another battalion with which he saw service on the North-West Frontier, at Waziristan. Then he commanded a machine gun company and was awarded a medal and clasp. In 1939 he obtained a competitive vacancy at the Staff College, Quetta, and passed out, in 1940, in Category "A," that is to say, among the first half-dozen of the 60 candidates. He then went to Malaya and was successively staff captain, brigade major, and G.S.O.2. He fought in the Malaya Campaign from December, 1941, to February, 1942, first as G.S.O.2 in both combined and special operations, then as commander of the Force, bearing his name, that was in the retreat to Johore, and, finally, as second-in-command of his battalion until as a unit it ceased to exist. After the deplorable end of that campaign he was evacuated to Java and sent on to India, where he was G.S.O.2 and then G.S.O.1 in the jungle warfare training team; after that he was appointed commandant and chief instructor of the Jungle Warfare Training Centre at G.H.Q., the Centre which he himself formed, and which is still in being. He was then repatriated to this country to his own battalion and eventually, in January, 1944, a year ago, was appointed to command another battalion in the same regiment. From that command he was afterwards removed, and that is the origin of my raising this case to-day. I will not give the name of the regiment—probably it is not desirable to do so—but if any hon. Member wishes to know it I shall be glad to inform him of it later.
This officer found the battalion, which had to come home after the fighting in North Africa, in poor shape. It was suffering from reaction, discipline and morale were not good, absenteeism was rife and there had been a lot of sickness. Knowing that his unit would be wanted for what we now call D-Day, he set himself, with all the energy and experience he


possessed, to get it ready for battle, and in doing so had the able assistance of some of his officers and N.C.Os. He found it an extremely uphill task, but by May it was, in his opinion—and he had great experience—ready for action, if lacking in polish. Towards the end of May his brigadier, with whom he had been on the best of terms and who had never even hinted that he regarded this officer as in any way inefficient, ordered him to hand over his command, giving him to understand that his order had the approval of the divisional commander. That, as Major Rose subsequently ascertained, was untrue. The brigadier acted on his own initiative, and so his action was irregular ab initio. The brigadier's report to Major Rose is dated 22nd May, 1944, and if I may I will read it almost verbatim, because it has to be carefully compared with the subsequent reports of the divisional and army commanders, and also because it seems to me to be couched, in part, in terms which reveal a personal bias by the brigadier. It says:
I consider it necessary that this officer should cease to command the battalion of which he was appointed C.O. last January. I do not consider that he is at present fit to command a battalion in the field on active service.
Note that the brigadier says "a battalion," and not "the battalion." He goes on:
He has completely failed to gain the confidence of either his officers or his men, and does not appear to have the ability to handle or manage his battalion in such a way as to gain it. This officer fought extremely well, I understand, in Singapore, in 1942, and appears to be obsessed with jungle warfare ideas to the exclusion of most other considerations. I recommend that he should be employed in his war substantive rank, that is major, in some capacity in the type of warfare of which he has experience.
Major Rose appealed to the divisional commander who, on 24th May confirming the brigadier, recommended in his report that he should be further employed in his present rank of lieut.-colonel, either as commander or trainer of troops engaged in jungle fighting in which, as he said,
he takes the greatest interest and has wide knowledge and experience.
Major Rose did not see the report of the corps commander, but did see that of the Commander-in-Chief, General, now Field Marshal, Montgomery, who, on 30th May, just a few days before D-Day, wrote:

It is a great pity that this state of affairs was not discovered earlier. The divisional corps and Army commanders have confidence in the commander of the infantry brigade. It is quite clear that Lieut.-Colonel Rose cannot now Stay where he is. He will be replaced at once. He is an experienced officer and has much knowledge of jungle fighting. I recommend that he be given a battalion command in South-East Asia.
Major Rose then appealed to the Army Council asking for an impartial inquiry into the whole matter, but his appeal was turned down. The Army Council, however, stated that——

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned——

Mr. SPEAKER retorted the Royal Assent to:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1945.

BATTALION COMMANDER (INQUIRY)

Question again proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."

Mr. Ross Taylor: I have told the House of the report of the Commander-in-Chief on the officer in question and also the result of his appeal to the Army Council, which stated that he would be considered for employment in a command outside the 21st Army Group. Colonel Rose then appealed to the highest authority, under Section 42 of the Act, and that appeal also failed, I understand that my right hon. Friend was not able to propose or suggest any modification. Colonel Rose was then appointed to the 11th Army, and at the end of October left for the East as second in command of a battalion.
I submit that the reports that I have quoted are alone sufficient to nullify the brigadier's statement that Rose was unfit to command a battalion in the field on active service. The divisional commander recommended that he should be employed in his present rank of lieutenant-colonel, Field-Marshal Montgomery recommended that he should be given a battalion in East Asia and the Army Council said he would be considered for employment in command outside the 21st Army Group. Evidently none of these authorities, whose judgment is presumably


riper and more experienced than that of the brigadier, was of the opinion that Rose was unfit to command a battalion, and it is difficult for those who are unversed in the subtleties of military practice to understand why they did not have the brigadier's mischievous and defamatory statement repudiated and removed from his record. It may have been thought necessary to save the brigadier's face. Field-Marshal Montgomery rather went out of his way to say that he had confidence in him, but the continued presence of that statement on the record has already been prejudicial to him and its removal is a matter of elementary justice.
In asking for an impartial inquiry into the whole affair—he has done that from the beginning—Rose does not need to rely only on the fact that the reports of his superior officers contradict that of the brigadier. He is in a position to bring direct evidence to prove that the action of the brigadier was irregular and that the charge of inefficiency was unfounded. He is also in a position to bring strong circumstantial evidence that the brigadier acted not as the result of faulty judgment but out of jealousy and spite. Rose accepted as true the brigadier's statement that he had received the divisional commander's approval of the order to him to hand over his command. That was untrue. To that irregularity is added the fact that, while Rose was still in command, the brigadier addressed some of the officers of the battalion regarding his dismissal, which was a very unfortunate thing to do. These are not the only irregularities, but I will not trouble the House with further details.
With regard to Rose's alleged inefficiency, there is ample evidence to show that the brigadier's view was not shared by many in the battalion. The second in command, who took over from Rose, told the latter that he had done his utmost to prevent the brigadier from replacing him in the command, which he considered most unwise. Later, when he assumed command and was addressing some of his company commanders, he informed them that Colonel Rose's orders and policy, would continue unchanged in letter and in spirit. Rose's senior company commander, a Regular officer of great experience, described the brigadier's action as an outrageous injustice, and so strongly did he feel about it that he wrote officially on the subject and asked to be posted to

another battalion. Many other officers, N.C.O.'s and men of the battalion could give evidence to rebut the brigadier's allegation.
The charge that the brigadier was biased and that his report was the outcome of jealousy and spite seems to me manifest from its very wording. He appears, says the brigadier, to be obsessed with jungle warfare ideas to the exclusion of most other considerations. To anyone who knows the officer that statement is perfectly ridiculous and the sneer in it seems to me obvious. But that alone is not relied on to establish this charge against the brigadier. There are various incidents, including one in which the chaplain of the regiment was involved, which might be adduced in support of it. Rose however, though naturally indignant that he should have been maligned by an officer who has infinitely less experience than he has, is less concerned with bringing the brigadier to book than getting the unjustified stigma removed from his record. That is the main reason why he has pressed for an impartial inquiry all along. I feel very strongly that, if the request for an inquiry is not acceded to, the charge of inefficiency ought to be expunged from his record. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War points out in his answer to the Question to which I have referred that this officer has exhausted his right of appeal. That is to say, there is no machinery by which the case can be again reviewed. We therefore have the extraordinary position that though the judgment of the brigadier was in effect reversed by the Divisional and the Army Commanders and the Army Council, the stain cast by him on Rose's military reputation is to remain for all time.
There seems to be something wrong with the machinery for dealing with this class of case. It is not unique, for there have been many similar cases in this war, and I know of one in the last war the victim of which is a Member of this House. The Army Council might have put the matter right, but that was hardly to be expected because, as a court of appeal in cases of this kind, they cannot be regarded as an ideal tribunal. In theory, they may enjoy the complete independence possessed by a judicial body, but circumstances may well make it inadvisable to exercise that independence. In this case they could hardly be said to


have had a free hand, for General Montgomery, an officer senior to any of the officers who dealt with the matter and, of course, much more experienced, had already made a pronouncement, and if the Army Council had proceeded to order the cancellation of the words complained of in the report, they might have been regarded as cutting across the Commander-in-Chief's expression of confidence in the brigadier. The Council are also—no doubt quite properly—imbued with the necessity of upholding authority in the Army, but that doctrine can be pressed too far, and I maintain that in this case it has been pressed too far and has resulted in a failure to do justice.
I would like to say a word about my intervention in this case. I have been assured by my right hon. Friend that my intervention did not prejudice Rose in any way, but, in point of fact, it was indicated to him unofficially that he had blotted his copy-book by approaching his M.P. on the subject, and it was intimated to him officially that the fact that he had done so had delayed consideration of his case. The facts of the matter are these. Rose happens to be a friend of mine as well as a constituent. His home is near the town in which I live. I have known his mother for many years and I know other members of his family. What is more natural, when I saw him just after he had been relieved of his command in the circumstances I have described, than that he should have spoken to me about a matter, regarding which he was burning with indignation? Indeed at that time he told me that if he did not get redress he would ask me to take the case up as his Member of Parliament. He was talking of resigning and going into the ranks, and I felt it would be a pity if all that ability were to he lost. I therefore ventured on my own responsibility to write confidentially to my right hon. Friend suggesting a compromise. Nothing came of it, and the case took the course which I have described.
Together with one or two unofficial conversations I had with my right hon. Friend's Parliamentary Private Secretary, that was the extent of my intervention until I put down the Question to which I have referred. I very much resent the suggestion that that should in any way have prejudiced Major Rose. In any

event, it is surely the right of every man in the Army, whether he be officer or private, if he considers he has been unjustly treated, in the last resort to ask his Member of Parliament to take up his case for him. It is in fulfilment of that obligation that I have brought what seems to me to be a grave injustice to the notice of the House, and, in doing so, to the notice of others outside, who will thus learn what an inquiry, which has been denied to Rose so far, would undoubtedly reveal. It is not too late yet to vindicate this officer, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to say something of that kind, because I feel that a serious injustice has been done and ought to be remedied.

2.37 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would like, first, to assure my hon. Friend and the House that there is not a word of truth in any suggestion that might be made, as regards this or any other officer or other rank in the British Army, that, so far as it can be prevented by the War Office, such an individual would be prejudiced by reason of his writing to his Member of Parliament on any matter in which he feels he has a grievance. The chronological order of events in this case are sufficient to justify my saying that the fact that Major Rose brought his case to the notice of his Member has not prejudiced him in any way. I must confess that, after listening to my hon. Friend, I feel very dubious as to whether Major Rose was wise in asking him to raise the matter to-day. Additionally, I feel that the line my hon. Friend has followed has not really helped his own case. It is an old saying that if you have a bad case abuse the plaintiff's attorney, and I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend has gone out of his way to besmirch the reputation of the brigadier in question without adducing one scrap of evidence to justify his charge that the brigadier was guilty of personal bias against Major Rose. My hon. Friend quoted the report of the brigadier in which he fairly referred to the good service which Major Rose had done in the campaign that took place in Malaya. But any brigadier has not only a right, but a duty, to take action if he comes to the conclusion that an officer under his command is not qualified in his opinion to serve under him in a position of responsibility. It would be the duty


of a brigadier, and it would have been the duty of Colonel Rose himself at that time, to take action if he thought that one of his company commanders, preparing for D-Day and all that it involved and with the lives of 400 or 500 men in his charge, should not be entrusted with certain responsibility in certain events. That would have been his duty if, rightly or wrongly, he came to that conclusion.
I listened very carefully for any evidence that might have substantiated the charge that this particular brigadier was guilty of prejudice against Major Rose—personal bias, I think it was called. My hon. Friend also tried to justify his claims by referring to the fact that the matter was made worse by reason of the brigadier having had less experience than Major Rose. Is the House to understand that only Regular officers can be considered to have sufficient military experience? Is it to be suggested after nearly six years of war that the fact that this brigadier happens to have been a Territorial is a matter for suspicion, that there was some ill-feeling between the brigadier, because he was a Territorial and Major Rose was a Regular officer? It may interest the House to know that this particular brigadier has served in the Army during the whole of this war. He had some years' service as a Territorial officer before the war. He commanded a battalion of the Black Watch throughout the North African Campaign, was awarded the D.S.O., was wounded, and is to-day, as we know, commanding a brigade in the British Liberation Army, and is considered by all superior officers, from Field-Marshal Montgomery downwards, to be a very experienced and first-class brigadier. I hope the House will not be influenced by any suggestion that merely because Major Rose—with a very good record of service himself in Malaya, where he had great experience in jungle fighting—is a Regular officer, there is some reason why we should distrust the opinion of a Territorial brigadier.
Even if we were a little dubious about this Territorial brigadier, we have the fact that, as is the system in the Army, someone has to initiate a report on an officer if he is considered to be in a position he cannot fill. But we have this double, treble, and quadruple checking by the superior officers, right up the line. My hon. Friend has quoted from the views of the divi-

sional commander and Field-Marshal Montgomery, who, incidentally, while they take the view that Major Rose should have a second chance in another theatre of operations, and in fact should be given command of a battalion in another theatre of operations, at the same time express their acceptance of and confidence in the report of the brigadier. My hon. Friend might also have mentioned that two other commanders, the corps commander and the Army commander, General Dempsey, not only accepted the report of the brigadier and indicated their confidence in him, but they did not go so far as to recommend that Major Rose should be given command of a battalion in another theatre of operations.
The fact that there were two who did and two who did not make that recommendation, and that the Army Council, when it came to investigate this case, as the final court of appeal, accepted the adverse report, but also said that Major Rose should be given a command in South-East Asia Command, where he will have an opportunity of making use of his experience in that type of warfare—I should have thought all that indicated that so far from a serious injustice having been done to this officer, he had been treated with the greatest degree of justice and impartiality. I would therefore suggest to the House that my hon. Friend has put his case far too high, and has made what I think are wild and reckless charges against this brigadier, who has a duty to do, if he takes the view that an officer is not qualified to hold a command under him. All Members of this House who have served in the Army on active service know perfectly well that it is an impossible situation to place responsibility on any senior officer—colonel or brigadier as the case may be—and expect him to have under his command officers in whom he does not have confidence.
I agree that if a brigadier, because he does not like the colour of the eyes of a colonel, or a colonel because he does not like the political views or religious persuasion of one of his junior officers, said he had no confidence in him, there would be evidence of prejudice and personal bias. But if a brigadier, as I submit on the basis of this report, takes the view that he has no longer confidence in a particular unit commander, and this is prior to the launching of this great operation which started on D-Day, then under


the system we must have in the British Army, or any other army, in the absence of conclusive evidence that there has been personal bias, we must accept the report of the brigadier, backed as it is, as my hon. Friend has told the House, by the views of officers higher than the brigadier in question. I very much regret that my hon. Friend has felt it necessary, in making his case, to make this personal attack on this gallant officer, who, as I say, has a first-class record of service in this war, and I cannot agree that his statements were mischevious or defamatory. I very much doubt whether one can justify the statement that he has charged Major Rose with being an inefficient officer. He has said he was not fitting into that particular battalion, and as that battalion was part of his brigade, he wanted him transferred away from his brigade.
I think it is common ground, and I think it is because we take the view that Major Rose is an efficient officer who has rendered good service, and will no doubt render further good service in the type of warfare taking place in the South-East Asia Command, that the Army Council, when it finally decided this case, recommended he should at the first available opportunity be given a battalion in that part of the world. In any event he only arrived in India two or three weeks ago, and up to the present time there has not been a vacancy, but it is quite evident that Major Rose stands a very good chance of being given command of a battalion when a vacancy arises, provided he does not carry on this campaign against other officers in the Army, but accepts the view, which I put to the House, that he has been treated with every consideration and with fairness and justice, and does his best to retrieve the position by good service in the campaign to which he has been sent.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Quite frankly, I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has answered the case. I listened very attentively to the hon. Member who brought up this subject on the Adjournment, and there were one or two points which struck me very much indeed. First I would ask whether, after Rose was removed from his command, there was a radical change

in the training. It has been definitely stated that officers of the battalion had said that the methods of training adopted by Rose were still in operation, and, as far as I can see, the whole case hinges on the fact that the brigadier believed that Rose was obsessed with methods of jungle warfare. Secondly, I would say that the Financial Secretary rather exaggerated the attack that was made on this brigadier. I do not think the hon. Gentleman made any very vitriolic or specific attack on him. He certainly accused him of not seeing eye to eye with Rose, and meeting other officers of the battalion and discussing Rose's case with them which, I think, all Members will agree, is something that ought not to be done. I would ask the Financial Secretary, therefore, whether the question of Rose's dismissal was discussed by the brigadier with junior officers in the battalion. I would be grateful if he would give me an answer to my two questions, which I will repeat: Was the method of training radically changed after Rose's departure; and did the brigadier discuss Rose's dismissal with junior officers of the battalion?

Mr. Henderson: As regards the second question, I very much doubt whether the brigadier discussed the framing of an adverse report, for which he is responsible, with junior officers of the battalion. As regards the other point, I do not think it has very much practical bearing, as a result of the adverse report, on the training of the battalion, because the report was not sent in until some time in May and, of course, D-Day was on 6th June. By the time they had been moved to their concentration areas, I very much doubt whether any great amount of training took place following the removal of this particular officer.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Financial Secretary say whether since D-Day this battalion has carried out its duties in an exemplary form, and distinguished itself equally with other battalions using different methods?

Mr. Henderson: As far as I know, every single battalion in the British Army which has been in action has done what was expected of it.

Mr. Mack: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary whether a junior officer who for some reason or other finds himself adversely


reported upon by a superior officer, receives a report of the allegation made against him, or is the report lodged in confidence? What redress has a junior officer at present if, as the consequence of some alleged misdemeanour, or general misconduct, he is dismissed from the Army, reduced in rank, or penalised in some way? Would he have an opportunity of putting his case before the Army Council and answering any charges?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that such action is not taken behind a man's back. The initiating officer has to show the adverse report to the officer reported on, and that officer must initial the report. The case of a lieutenant who is reported on by his commanding officer has to be considered by the brigadier, who must see the officer himself. If he knows the officer in question he is in a better position to assess the value of the report. It is also possible for the officer concerned to go before the Divisional Commander, because the report must also be commented on by the Divisional Commander and, officially, by the Army Commander. Of course, every officer has the right to appeal under Section 42 to the Army Council. [Interruption.] In the case of non-commissioned ranks Section 43 is the appropriate one.

Mr. Mack: I take it that every officer has the right to make representations to the Army Council, but can an officer be assured of being heard by the Council?

Mr. Henderson: He is not heard in person, but all the relevant documents in the case are submitted to the Army Council and their decision is arrived at upon that documentary evidence.

FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY)

2.57 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: As I have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter which I consider is of great importance at the present time—as do other hon. and gallant Members—the necessity for the reconsideration of the pay of the officers and men in the Services. It has been the policy for a very long time for the State to acquire the services of officers and men in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force at as cheap a rate as possible. Servicemen have been

extremely badly paid in comparison with workers in industry.
Owing to the war, the question of Service pay has been brought into the limelight in this House and throughout the nation generally, as never before. Of course, the reason for that is that the manhood of the country has been conscripted from industry for the Armed Services. The matter, therefore, becomes one of great moment, especially in the minds of the Members of the Socialist Party. The workers of this country when sent into the Services are very indifferently paid, but the unfortunate part of it is that though Service pay has in the past been very low for years Members of the Socialist Party have never given any active co-operation in getting the matter remedied.

Mr. George Griffiths: We have always voted for high pay for the Services.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not think the hon. Member has a very good case. For years past the Socialist Members have consistently voted against the Estimates, which include the matter of pay——

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Would my hon. and gallant Friend tell us which party was in power during the years that the Services were so badly paid?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It really does not matter which party was in power; it is not material. The point is that if the people, including the Socialist Party, who were so concerned about the men of this country getting fair wages in industry, had only taken an interest in the pay of the men in the Services, then something would have been done. They did not do that. Those who vote against Service Estimates must not get up and criticise. That is the position in which hon. Members are to-day, due to what happened in the past.
To revert to what I wish to say: it is public knowledge that officers and men in the Services are not sufficiently paid. To show that what I am saying is correct, I would mention that orders were brought out by the Admiralty last year for increasing the marriage allowance for the men of the lower deck. I was delighted that that should be done, but it means that an ordinary seaman receives far more because he is married and has one child


than he does for the service he renders to the State as a seaman. T hat is obviously wrong. The only conclusion to be drawn from that position is that as a seaman—and this comment applies equally to the private in the Army, but I know more about seamen than I do about the Army—is underpaid, as a seaman. He is not paid sufficient to maintain a wife and child. Therefore the marriage allowance has to be enormously increased. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The unmarried seaman remains underpaid. That also is obvious. He is helping to pay the extra money to the married man. I have not the figures with me, but they would show that the ordinary seaman—the able seaman, the leading seaman and the petty officer—when he is married and has one child, receives as marriage allowance more than his captain. Surely to goodness that situation cannot be defended. There are two points which show that the whole question of pay really requires revising. It is in the interests of the nation, and it is the policy of the Government, to encourage marriage. The increase of the population of this country is absolutely essential to our future. To encourage it, the Government granted this very large marriage allowance. I am very glad they did so, but it shows that the seaman, as well as the soldier, is underpaid. It is high time that we got away from the idea that we should employ men in the Army, Navy and Air Force as cheaply as possible. They render to-day, as they have always rendered, immense service to the country, and they have a tremendous struggle to face, whether they are married or unmarried. It is not only the married man who suffers; there are numbers of officers and men in my Service who are not married but nevertheless support their mothers or some other dependents, and therefore the same arguments apply to them. Their pay is not sufficient to enable them to put a bit away for the day when ultimately they have to retire.
Let not any hon. Member think that everybody in the Services receives a pension. One has to reach a certain age or length of service and of course it depends upon the rank you hold when you retire what pension you receive. With taxation as it is to-day, the pension does not amount to a terrible lot. I understand

that it is the policy of the Government that the pay of the officers and men for all the three Services shall be more or less equalised, so that there should be no differentiation between the Services, one Service being more highly paid than another in basic pay. I find no fault with that policy and it may be a very good thing that there should be equal attraction, so far as basic pay is concerned, for those who join any of the Fighting Services. For years I have often bored the House and taken up time in fighting the battle of the naval officers, in regard to marriage allowances. I can only say that I propose to do so again this afternoon and that I shall go on doing so until I win my case.
I am positively certain from the facts I have that I have an unanswerable case. I have asked innumerable questions on the subject and I have always received what I consider totally unsatisfactory answers. I have raised the matter time and time again, on the whole without much success. If it is the policy of the Government, as I understand it is, that there should be equality of basic pay among the Services, that should be an established fact. It is not. In 1919 a Committee was set up with Admiral Jerram as its chairman to consider the matter of pay. Admiral Halsey was appointed to consider the matter from the point of view of the officers. As a result of the recommendations of the Committee the pay was raised.
Incidentally, I might recall that the pay of the Navy had remained at the same level for about 70 years. In 1938, 19 years after the appointment of the Committee, naval officers received marriage allowances for the first time. The officers in the other Services had been receiving them for some time. It was stated when this concession—if I may so call it—was announced in the House, that the pay in 1919, decided upon and approved by the Government for the naval officer, which had been increased, included an element of marriage allowance. Officers in the Navy were to be given marriage allowance, as officers in the Army and Air Force were already. It was quite impossible to leave the pay as it was in 1919, including an element of marriage allowance, and at the same time to give a marriage allowance to the naval officer—that was the argument. As a


result of that argument the basic pay of every naval officer, from lieutenant-commander to commodore second class—that is the rank between a captain and a rear-admiral, of course—was reduced by 2s. a day, and a warrant officer's pay was reduced by from 1s. to 1s. 8d. a day, in order to pay for marriage allowance.
It may be that in 1919 the pay was supposed to include an element of marriage allowance, but if any hon. Member takes the trouble to go to the Library, he will find that that is not in the Report. It is contained in an appendix—No. 5—but Appendix No. 5 is not in the Report in the Library of this House, nor is it in the Report in the library at the Admiralty. Why is that Appendix left out? Admittedly, in 1919 the pay of the naval officer was increased. The House will not expect me, as I have no notes whatever, to dogmatise on what the actual pay for the ranks was; but in 1938, 19 years later, the pay, which was supposed in 1919 to include an element of marriage allowance, had been reduced. Therefore, the ground put forward by the Admiralty that naval officers' pay, on the introduction of a marriage allowance, should be reduced by 2s. a day, because in 1919 their pay included an element of marriage allowance, falls to the ground. It is not fair. They have no right to do that, in my opinion.
If it was, as I understand, the policy of the Government to equalise the pay of the three Services, let us examine the comparative basic pay in 1938 of officers in the Navy and of their equivalent ranks in the Army and in the Air Force. Before the reduction of 2s. a day, a lieut.-commander, the equivalent of a major in the Army, and a commander, the equivalent of a lieut.-colonel in the Army, were receiving less pay than officers of the corresponding ranks in the Army. Captains were the only officers receiving more pay than their equivalents in the Army. In their case I happen to remember the amount: it was 4s. a day more than was received by a colonel in the Army and a group captain in the Air Force—the two equivalent ranks. When the reduction by 2s. was made, on the introduction of marriage allowance, the pay of lieut-commanders and commanders was less than that of the equivalent ranks in both the Army and the Air Force. The captain got 2s. a day more. So far as the commander is concerned, the amount is quite considerable, and it

is by no means negligible in the case of the lieut.-commander. If it is the policy of the Admiralty that the pay of these officers should be put on more or less the same basis, why do they not do it? I should not be put off by some rigmarole every time I ask a question about the matter. There is always juggling by Ministers about these things. They give with one hand, and take away with the other.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The Tories always do that.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Socialists have not helped very much. I must remind them that over the years they have always voted against the Estimates.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member was in the House in 1938. Did he vote against this abominable thing for the Navy, or did he keep his mouth shut?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have a very clear answer. I hope the hon. Member will look up the Debate.

Mr. Griffiths: I will.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: When he has read that Debate, I shall be quite cleared from any accusation of not opposing this reduction by 2s. I opposed it then, I have consistently opposed it ever since, I am still opposing it, and I am going on doing so.

Mr. Griffiths: Did the hon. and gallant Member vote against it?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member must not misunderstand me. I do not want to misunderstand him. The naval officer is quite agreeable to accept half a loaf as being better than no bread.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member is almost as good as a Cabinet Minister at evading a question. Did he vote against it?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Vote against what? I think my position is quite clear. I have consistently, and I might almost say unilaterally, taken up the cause of the naval officer in this respect. I have a perfectly clear conscience, and I think my record will not be in any way smirched when the hon. Member has read what took place in 1938, when the hon. baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) introduced this Estimate. I think I have


proved the case up to the hilt. I hope that when the matter comes up again, every hon. Member on the Socialist benches will rise in his place and support me.
I have been looking for that for years, and now I hope I have got it. The case is that the pay of the officers, and of the men, of course, should be more or less on the same level, but that is not the case to-day. The naval officer is worse paid than officers in the other Services, and the country will not stand for that. There is, to-day, any amount of lip service, not only in this country but throughout the world, to the magnificent service which the men in the Navy and the Merchant Navy have rendered to this country, but the naval officers are worse paid than the officers in the other Services. It is arguable, of course, whether they should be better paid. I think their responsibilities are immensely greater. After all, imagine the captain in charge of a ship which costs the country £10,000,000 or £15,000,000, and with 1,500 officers and men on board. I do not consider that his responsibilities are less, but greater, than those of a colonel in the Army or of a group captain in the Royal Air Force, but I do not wish to stress that. I want to get to the position where the naval officer is at least as well paid as officers in the other Services.
There are various anomalies which have been brought into being by the Admiralty. It may be the fault of the Exchequer, but one never can find out who it is. First, regarding the naval officer and the marriage allowance, I asked the First Lord the other day what assessment was placed by the Admiralty upon the accommodation which was provided for officers at sea—a cabin, heat, light, etc., at sea—and in shore barracks, when they had their own rooms, heating and lighting, and so on. The Anderson Committee assessed the naval officer's accommodation at £150 a year, and as far as I remember at £30 a year for the men. Of course, that amount is taken into consideration in calculating what pay officers and men receive. In their recommendation the Anderson Committee, in order to make good the case for not increasing the pay of the men in the Service, were always elaborating on how much they got in allowances and accommodation and all the rest of it, and they then compared it

with what, at any rate, at that time, was about the lowest paid man in the country—the agricultural labourer. How unjust and unfair.
My main point is that an officer is provided with Service quarters on board ship or ashore, and that light, heat and so on are taken into consideration in assessing what pay he shall receive. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong; it may be right, it may not. But, when the officer is appointed ashore, and no Service quarters are provided for him to make up for not having Service quarters provided, he receives a lodging allowance instead, because of what he has to provide for himself and pay out of his own pocket. That assessment of his accommodation is no doubt taken into account when arranging what pay he shall receive, and he receives less because of the accommodation provided for him than he would were it not provided. When the Admiralty does not provide Service accommodation for him, he receives lodging allowance—£100 a year in the case of a captain, £80 for a commander, and it works down.
The point I want to stress is this great injustice to the naval officer, which does not apply to officers in the other two Services. On the introduction of the marriage allowance, it was laid down by the Admiralty that the married officer shall not receive marriage allowance and lodging allowance together; that is to say, if he has to provide himself with quarters and he receives marriage allowance, he does not receive the lodging allowance. That, not to put too fine a point upon it, is, in my opinion, a pure swindle. There is no connection whatever between lodging allowance, which is given because the Admiralty does not provide the officer with quarters, and marriage allowance, which is a very different matter and given because he is married. The Admiralty, however, say it is because marriage allowance is bound up with lodging allowance. I cannot see it, and neither can the officers concerned, and I hope it will be done away with.
In the case of the Army and the Royal Air Force, there is no question that they should receive both these allowances, and they get both. Also, a naval officer has to live apart from his wife before he receives the marriage allowance. If he lives with his wife in the same house ashore, he is not entitled to the marriage allow-


ance, but has to be separated from his wife in order to get it. I remember the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich saying that if married officers ashore received a marriage allowance when living with their wives the officers at sea would not like it. Of course, it is nonsense, but, to-day, that is what is going on, and officers have to be separated from their wives in order to draw the marriage allowance. If that applied to all the Services we would not have such a strong case, but there is a very strong case for saying that, if a man is married and there is a marriage allowance, he ought to get it all the time, not for part of the time. Officers in the other Services do get it all the time, whether they are separated from their wives, living in different houses, or living together in the same house. I plead for justice for the naval officer. He should be placed on an equality with the officers of the other Services, which, I understand, is the policy of the Government and of the Admiralty and is the wish of the nation—that he should be treated more or less on the same basis so far as these things are concerned. That is not the case to-day.
There is another thing which was brought to my notice the other day. It is the question of pre-natal allowance to help officers to meet the extra expense of their wives having a child. The prenatal allowance is given to civilian workers, and quite right too, but if it is right for them it is right for the officers and men of the Services. If an officer in one of the three Services is living in official quarters he does not draw any pre-natal allowance in respect of his wife. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he considers that, because an officer is living in Service quarters, it is less expensive for his wife to have a child. Of course it is not less expensive, and it is very mean, whoever is responsible for the present condition of things, and this applies to all three Services. There are other things which I could bring up in connection with this matter, but I hope I have brought out almost sufficient—and these are all facts which are indisputable—to induce hon. Members in this House to try to get justice for naval officers and men and a revision of their pay and allowances.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I intervene with the object only of assist-

ing my hon. and gallant Friend, for whom I have a great personal regard, and I shall be glad if he will tell me what, in his opinion, is blocking what seems to be a very sensible and fair case. Has he any theory? Is it the First Lord of the Admiralty, or the Admirals themselves, or the Treasury, or is it because the Front Bench has not grasped the justice of the case?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the point he has raised. Unfortunately, it has always been the policy to get officers and men as cheaply as possible.

Mr. Baxter: Who is to blame?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Treasury have done their best. The recommendation of the Jerram Committee of inquiry was stated to be that 20 per cent. of the whole of the pay of the naval officer in 1919 should be subject to the rise and fall in the cost of living. I cannot dogmatise about this, but I am informed that the recommendation was not that 20 per cent. of the whole of the pension should be subject to the rise and fall in the cost of living, but 20 per cent. of the increase in pay which the Committee recommended. I cannot understand why the Admiralty do not do more to stand up for their officers in this matter. I do not know where the blame lies. It is extremely difficult to find out and pin down those who are to blame. Eventually the pay was stabilised and this was done after a continued fall in the cost of living index and when a rise in the cost of living had started. There is also the question of widows' pensions; the amount that widows get is deplorable. An officer might serve right up to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet and render great service to the country and yet his widow's pension, which in any case is small enough, would be subject to a means test. The question of officers' pensions should be revised. Owing to the immense increase in the cost of living, that which was a reasonable pension years ago is no longer reasonable. These people are very hard hit. There are bonuses galore for civil servants and for those in industry—and I have no objection—but officers who have rendered great service to the country are pinned down to a pension which has no relation to present conditions and have to meet the great increase


in the cost of living of the present day. They have to maintain a certain position. Is there anything wrong with that?
I apologise for having taken up so much time and I am very grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have given me such a patient hearing on a subject which I have raised on many previous occasions. I feel very keenly about it, and I am most desirous that the matter should be put right and that naval officers should be treated in the same way as the officers in the other Services. The whole question of pay of officers and men is due for revision. The country, I am certain, would not stand for the present state of affairs, knowing the magnificent service the officers and men have given to the country in its hour of trial.

FOREIGN POLICY

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I am sure that the House has listened with interest to the most impassioned appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend. In reflecting on what he was saying, I came to this conclusion, that, while I think everybody on this side of the House would agree with his main contention, it is perhaps a pity that he does not study more closely the economic policy which we ourselves proclaim, because there he would find a solution of his difficulties.
I do not wish to continue that description. I rose for the purpose of raising a very much broader issue. I suppose I must start by apologising to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for not having given sufficient notice. I only knew an hour or so ago that our proceedings were likely to terminate at an early hour, and the Foreign Secretary having sat on this side of the House very often, will be as well aware as I am, of the difficulty of back benchers getting an opportunity of voicing their views, and these occasions must not be missed. Therefore, I assure my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who, I am glad to see, has come to answer, that I have not come prepared with a perfect speech to make against the Government. I have come only to speak my thoughts, but I hope that, at least, he may be stimulated by what I have to say, or that it may

give him a clue as to what reply he should give. Whether they agree with me or not, other hon. Members of the House will speak on this vital issue, and give him further cause for reflection and further material on which to base his reply.
I want to raise what is to me and, indeed, to every person in this country, a matter of vital importance, that is the conduct of political affairs in relation to our foreign policy to-day. I know it is a broad issue but, in my view, the principles upon which our foreign policy should be founded are principles which should be enunciated again and again, and as often as possible, and on every opportunity that occurs, and it is for that reason that I have seized this opportunity to-day.
We meet to-day under the shadow—I call it a shadow in view of what has happened on preceding occasions—of an impending conference abroad. When or where that is to take place I have not the slightest idea, but I would like, if I could, to make my views reach those celebrated personages who are to represent the cause of this great country and great Empire at that meeting. My mind carries me back to the first Teheran Conference in November, 1943. I have said on other occasions, and I have no hesitation at all in saying it again to-day, that in my view—I speak only for myself and not for my party—the principles for which I stand were betrayed at that Conference, and conclusions were arrived at and agreements were made at that Conference, of which this House was not sufficiently informed at the time. I know the Prime Minister came back in February, a few months after the Conference, and made a statement to this House couched in strong language, but sufficiently veiled not to rouse the hostility of many people. I am bound to say I felt a bit angry myself. The Foreign Secretary stood up shortly afterwards and assured us in terms that admit of no equivocation, that there had been no secret understanding. I think it it is worth while quoting to the House the words he used. In reply, I think, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), he said on 15th December, 1943:
I can also tell the House, lest there is any uneasiness about it, that we have not entered into any kind of secret engagement or


treaty or anything which can cause anyone a sleepless night or a sleepless hour, and the hon. Member need not have any fear that the movement of power has been from him to the Treasury Bench. I can give this undertaking, that as long as I have anything to do with the conduct of the Foreign Office, if I make an engagement I shall come and tell the House at once, which is the constitutional practice, and, if they do not like it, they can turn me out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1943, Vol. 395, c. 1651.]
With the sentiments expressed in the last two sentences, I profoundly agree, but my feeling is that the Foreign Secretary—I am not speaking of my personal regard for him—in the execution of his duty, did not tell the House the true and honest facts.
I want the House to reflect on what happened at the Teheran Conference so far as we have been told. I have been challenged again and again in my constituency by people of the extreme Left, who would kneel down at the feet of Marshal Stalin "for ever and ever, amen," and by people of the extreme Right, who would do the same to the Prime Minister—there is very little difference between them when dictatorship comes into it. I would like to know what are the facts. I have said, and I challenge my right hon. Friend to dispute this, that, in effect, the Atlantic Charter was betrayed at the first Teheran Conference. He cannot deny that. It is true. It may be disagreeable, it might even be unavoidable, I do not know, but surely we should be allowed to know the facts as soon as possible after any step has been taken contrary to what the people of this country believe.
Secondly, what were we told? I know perfectly well that in our first Alliance with Poland all we did was to assure the Western frontier against aggression by Germany. We gave no guarantee as to the Eastern frontier. That is a point which is not sufficiently known but that, I think, can be proven from the records. The general sentiment in this country was, however, that we went to war to stop aggression, to protect the rights of Poland among other things. I can remember saying in the early days, with great unpopularity, that the longer this war went on, the less of Poland would be left, and that is precisely what has happened. The Prime Minister told us on 22nd February last year, that he had agreed with Marshal

Stalin for what is tantamount to the forcible adjustment of Russia's Western front. I have never disputed the advisability of adjusting Russia's Western front, I have always recognised that that, indeed, would have to be done, the moment Russia had gathered herself together from the last war and was able to assert what she considered to be her rights. But surely the essence of the thing should have been that it was to be done by agreement and not by force. That is my quarrel with the Government.
My mind goes to the Strang Mission. I remember that in June, 1939, we sent a mission to Russia to try to arrive at a treaty with Russia against Germany. I asked the Foreign Secretary the other day whether he would publish, as a White Paper, the discussions which took place in Moscow on that very vital point, and he said that it was not in the public interest. My belief is this—and I shall be very glad to have my argument completely destroyed—that, in effect, what the Russians said to us was, "Let us have Poland to the Curzon Line and the Baltic Provinces, and we will have an alliance with you." We said, "No," and I, personally, think we were quite right. I do not disagree with that. There was no alliance and what happens next? Off go the Germans to Moscow and Ribbentrop is asked the same question. He says, "Yes, not only may you have the Baltic Provinces, but as much as you want of Poland on the East, and we will take out of those Provinces all the German nationals who might be a nuisance to you." So they had an alliance. Now where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves fighting to give to Russia—I agree that Russia is doing a great deal of the fighting, but the philosophical background is that we are fighting to give to Russia—precisely those territories which, had we allowed her to have them in 1939, would have prevented an outbreak of war at all. Is there an answer to that? I should like to know. I do not think there is. It seems to me perfectly terrible that, as a result of what is going on, as I said on another occasion, the seeds of the next war have been sown. You are proposing not only to destroy Poland in effect; you are giving away the Baltic Provinces and doing so in no uncertain terms, which I will quote to my hon. Friend in a moment.

Mr. Silverman: I am trying to follow this, because we agree on so many things that I do not want to differ unnecessarily from my hon. Friend. Would he explain what he meant by the statement that the rectification of Russia's Western frontier in 1939 would have prevented the war?

Mr. Stokes: I am stating what is my belief, and I should have thought it was the belief of my hon. Friend. I do not say that war would never have broken out, but surely the belief of a large number of people who have studied this question is that if there really had been an alliance on the East, which involved, naturally, an adjustment of wrongs which Russia considered needed to be set right, then the Germans would at that moment have been afraid to enter into any war at all.

Mr. Silverman: What is wrong with doing it now?

Mr. Stokes: I am not arguing that question, I am arguing whether it should be done by force or not. After all, if you ask what is wrong with doing it now, I should reply, "Why waste all those lives, why not have done it in the first place?" If you are going to do it at all, then for goodness' sake save all the human lives you can in doing it. To let the war go on for six years, and then agree that this is the right thing to do, seems to me entirely crazy. As I have said, I do not dispute the necessity for adjustment but it must be done by agreement and not by force.
I would ask my hon. Friend to think of the Atlantic Charter which he and I, at least, think was a step in the right direction. It said that there shall be no territorial changes except by the wish of the people concerned. You can argue whether that would apply to some parts of Eastern Poland, but you cannot argue whether it does or does not apply to the Baltic Provinces. At the Teheran Conference, largely owing to its secrecy, zones of influence were agreed upon and independent action was allowed. Thus you get all the horrible villainies which are being carried on now. I am not in the least afraid of offending my hon. Friends. I know we did not guarantee the Eastern frontier of Poland, but Russia did. If she did not, then I do not know what is the meaning

of the Soviet-Polish Agreement of 30th July, 1941. It stated:
The U.S.S.R. recognises the Soviet-German Treaties of 1939 with regard to territorial changes in Poland as having lost their validity. The two Governments mutually undertake to render each other assistance and support of all kinds in the present war against Hitlerite Germany.
I do not know what that means unless it means that you are going to do your best to maintain the status quo until a different status is mutually agreed.
I return to the question of East Prussia, and I would remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on this point. I am not talking of the inhumanity of what is proposed—which makes one feel so hot with passion—but it seems crazy to contemplate the removal from territory of persons who have lived there for many generations. I do not see how you can get peace like that. We were told that at the Teheran Conference, in consideration of the cession of Eastern Poland up to the Curzon Line, or something like it, Poland was to be compensated by the cession of German territory in the North and West. I understand that specifically to refer to East Prussia. It may be that there are greater authorities on this point than the present Prime Minister, but at least he made a considerable contribution to international affairs in his writings after the last war. In "World Crisis Aftermath," he said:
The Province of East Prussia, although originally in the nature of a German colonial conquest, had become a purely German land, whose population was animated, above all other parts of Germany, by the spirit of intense nationalism.
How is it proposed to lift 3,500,000 people from East Prussia, put them down in another place and expect peace, a peace which we hope will be for all time? If you mean only a patched-up peace, which will later mean another war, then I understand the policy. In that case we shall all be dead and forgotten, and it will not matter to us. But it is the future we are all thinking of, at least those who fought in the last war and who fought, and are fighting, in this war. If I may take an analogy from part of the country which I represent, does my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary really imagine that if the boot had been on the other foot and the unspeakable thing had happened, and we had been "licked" in 1940 and Norfolk and


Suffolk had been taken away from us and had been given to the Dutch or Belgians and the population removed to South Wales, this would have meant peace? The moment those people arrived at their new destinations, they would have started to try to recapture their territory. I have been in Suffolk for 20 years, and I am not accepted yet! You cannot change people like that, and every student of international affairs knows perfectly well that you cannot get peace by uprooting people from territory which they consider is theirs, and in which they were born and bred.
I want to say a few words about the Baltic Provinces. I do not pretend to be well informed on the history of those Provinces, but I protest—and I would be a coward if I did not—against the terrible treatment which is being meted out to the people there, if the reports we receive are correct. If the reports are not correct, let us have them contradicted and proved untrue. What are we told by the Lithuanian representatives in this country? They say that designated families are selected, are visited suddenly and, without notice, are given an hour to collect a few possessions; that they are carried in lorries to the point of entrainment and that the heads of the families are separated from the others, this being kept secret so as not to provoke scenes; that these ruthless separations are enforced upon tens of thousands of private families for no other reason than that they are judged to be unlikely docilely to accept the Bolshevist formation. If that is so, it ought to be condemned outright: if not, it ought to be forcibly denied by the Minister. For the sake of humanity alone, the information which comes to Lithuanians in this country ought to be stated to be entirely without foundation, if that is the case.
I come to another broad question, the question of France. To read the papers in this country one would almost come to the conclusion that the French had won the war. I heard this belief all over the Middle East. Take Lebanon and Syria, about which we shall have a great deal to say in the near future. From the way the French behave, you would think that they had been upstanding for our rights, and that they ought to be given those territories back as soon as possible, whereas in fact it was the French who invited the Germans in. Do the

Government endorse the statement by General de Gaulle that not only must the French have the Rhineland, but also both banks of the Rhine? He stated that at a Press conference the other day. If that is so, there must be another war. It is absolutely certain. There is not anything to argue about.
Finally, I come to the fundamental point of the whole matter. We have to recognise that in the world to-day, there can be no future peace if we try to disintegrate it. Future peace depends on the close coming together of the people. Only is it possible, if there is a greater tendency for unity, and not disunity. Anything which leads to greater disintegration in Europe will certainly precipitate another crisis, and another world war. I feel it is a great pity that at these international conferences only one party is represented. It is a great pity that members of the Government who represent Members on this side of the House should not be present at these conferences. If the Cabinet have a joint responsibility, then members of the Cabinet should have some control over the conduct of affairs. Only if the principles we stand for are carried out, that peace is to be agreed, and not dictated, can there be some hope for the future of the world.

Mr. E. P. Smith: The hon. Member has spoken very feelingly of Poland. I assume that he would wish Poland to have access to the sea. Does he wish to perpetuate the Danzig corridor?

Mr. Stokes: I am opposed to the corridor and have never considered it essential to give Poland access to the sea. Lots of countries in Europe have not got it and live economically secure.

4.1 p.m.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has gone on a long world tour. He has taken us to Russia, to the Far East and to the Middle East, which I gather he knows well, and back again to France all in the space of fifteen minutes. He said he proposed to indulge in a little loud thinking. I think it was Mark Twain who said on one occasion that people sometimes sit and think, but sometimes just sit. The only difference in my view is that sometimes the hon. Member stands instead of sitting, because


he seems to take a delight in mischief making at critical times in our fortunes. First of all he attacked the policy of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in relation to the Teheran Conference, and criticised its findings, though he did not know what those findings were. Of course he does not know. The House knows well that the parleys between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill on the prosecution of the war and the state of the world immediately after the war must be secret. It is impracticable to suggest that it is possible for any Government to disclose with complete frankness the decisions arrived at and the discussions which led up to those decisions.

Mr. Stokes: I did not say we knew nothing. I said we only knew as much as the Prime Minister chose to tell us. My whole point was with regard to secret treaties on policy.

Sir A. Evans: Is the hon. Member suggesting that it is possible, when a treaty or understanding is arrived at during the prosecution of the greatest war in history, for those agreements to be published to the world—at the time?

Mr. Stokes: Certainly.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between agreements as to the conduct of the war, agreements as to what is to be done during the war and what after the war? Is there any reason why, if the heads of the great United Nations reach an agreement as to the disposal of territories or the organisation of human affairs after victory has been achieved, that should not be communicated and the sanction of the House of Commons sought to agreements of that kind?

Sir A. Evans: I see no reason at all at the opportune moment, when that state of affairs has come about, but is the hon. Member suggesting that those treaties are already in being and that the Government have secretly put their signature to treaties which have not been disclosed to the House of Commons?

Mr. Silverman: None of us know what agreements have been arrived at. It may be that we ought or it may be that we ought not. I thought the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that, if an agreement is reached as to what is to be done after

victory is achieved, it is impossible to communicate it, and it was that point that I was challenging.

Sir A. Evans: I am afraid the hon. Member did not follow me. The hon. Member for Ipswich charged the Foreign Secretary with making a statement about the Teheran meeting not in accordance with the true and honest fact.

Mr. Stokes: Certainly I do.

Sir A. Evans: Officially we have no knowledge as to what agreements were arrived at at Teheran. The hon. Member admitted that, because he asked the Government to tell us what the facts were. The question of Poland is a very difficult and delicate one to discuss at this particular time. Owing to the military efficiency of Russia, Poland is—at this moment—being freed of the enemy. That is fact No. 1. The next fact is that the Prime Minister has disclosed to the country that one of the subjects to be discussed at the coming international conference is that of Poland. It has also been disclosed in the American Press that President Roosevelt shares the same point of view, that that subject must be reviewed at the forthcoming conference. The hon. Member, in his anxiety to use any weapon with which to hit the Prime Minister over the head and embarrass the Government, chooses this time, on a Debate on the Adjournment of the House, to raise the question of Poland. I do not think he is serving any useful purpose at this time in saying anything which would either embarrass our representatives at the forthcoming conference, or in any way withhold from the glory of Russian arms what they are in fact doing, clearing the Germans out of Poland. To say the least, it is unfortunate and shows little sense of responsibility to seize on opportunities and occasions such as this to add embarrassment to a task which must of itself be difficult.
The hon. Member referred to the treatment likely to be accorded to East Prussia at the conclusion of the war and suggested that, if we ventured to hand over East Prussia and its territory to Poland in compensation for any other territory that might be ceded to another nation, we were doing something which would sow seeds for further trouble. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is not only Hitler but the German people them-


selves who must be called upon to pay the price of their errors. If we are to befriend the people of Poland, on whose behalf we entered this war, and the British people have made such enormous sacrifices; if we are to aid them in compensating them for some of their losses by taking away territory from a part of the German Reich, I should be the last to say them nay. I feel that we must review the situation in the realm of reality, realise on the one hand the just claims of Russia, and on the other that what we might wish to do, will not always accord with the views of our Allies, with whom we have to work not only now but in the future. I regret profoundly that, in his anxiety, the hon. Member seizes on anything to attack and embarrass the Government, instead of addressing himself to the larger problem of a lasting peace and using his undoubted ability to make a practical contribution to that end.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that in this matter of Poland I think he is batting on an extremely sticky wicket. I do not know what the complaint is. It is apparently conceded that the Curzon Line was not a line that was unfair to Poland. After all, it was agreed upon at the Versailles Conference. It was agreed upon at the Peace Conference at which Russia had no representatives. It secured the approval of a Commission presided over by Lord Curzon, and there is nobody, as far as I know, who has ever accused him of being too friendly to Bolshevik Russia. It was accepted by the Poles themselves. The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaties accompanying it which created the republic of Poland had the acquiescence of the Polish representatives at the time. The very Treaty which created the modern republic of Poland created it on the basis of the Eastern frontier between Poland and Russia, which has since come to be known as the Curzon Line.

Mr. Stokes: I do not want to get at loggerheads with my hon. Friend, but is he correct in saying that the Curzon Line was agreed on in the Versailles Treaty? I do not think so.

Mr. Silverman: This is a Debate which, as my hon. Friend has said, has been

staged without any notice to anybody, so that none of us have had much opportunity of looking up the facts. My impression is, however, that the Curzon Line, the border between Poland and Russia, was agreed upon by a Commission appointed under the authority of the Versailles Conference, and was incorporated into the Treaties which created the modern republic of Poland and which, at that time, had the consent of the Polish representatives.

Mr. Harold Nicolson: My hon. Friend is almost right, but not quite. What happened was that the Western frontier was decided in the Treaty of Versailles, but the Eastern frontier was left vague and was decided two years after.

Mr. Silverman: I said it was decided under the authority of negotiations commenced at the Versailles Conference and that ultimately, when the final boundaries on both sides were decided, it had the concurrence of the Polish representatives.

Mr. Nicolson: The Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with it. It was after the Russians had invaded Poland.

Mr. Silverman: I speak with all respect to my hon. Friend's much greater knowledge and experience, but surely it is no good saying that the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with it. But for Versailles there would have been no Poland at all.

Mr. Pickthorn: The same might be said about the apple and the Garden of Eden.

Mr. Silverman: I have yet to learn that the Versailles Treaty had anything to do with the Garden of Eden or the apple.

Mr. Pickthorn: I really believe that this is wholly irrelevant to the arguments of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes); but since the hon. Gentleman has introduced all this learning, which has been corrected and replenished by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson), and has brought in the argument that it has something to do with and is, indeed, part of and dependent on the Treaty of Versailles, because if there had not been that Treaty Poland would not have happened, let me say that that is an argument which you can apply as between any two events in history, from the first chapter of Genesis to this moment. As


the hon. Gentleman has called me to my feet, perhaps I may contribute my learning. I do so with great diffidence because I like to look these things up, but when the so-called Curzon Line was drawn it was drawn, not as a political line, but as an armistice line, as a line to keep the two armies apart.

Mr. Silverman: This goes far beyond anything started by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, and I doubt very much whether he would endorse many of the things that are being said in his support. The main point is—and I withdraw it completely if it is challenged—that, so far as I understand the argument, nobody really contends that there is anything ethically wrong with the Curzon Line as the border between Poland and Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich conceded that. If I am wrong as to the details of what happened at the Versailles Conference or afterwards, or on what the historical moralities may be, let it be so, but the argument I put—and I do not understand that anybody challenges it—is that nobody now disputes that the border that has come to be known as the Curzon Line between Poland and Russia is in itself a just and fair border, and that everybody would concede it.

Mr. Pickthorn: No Pole would.

Mr. Stokes: Concede the principle, yes, but I say that the adjustment must be made by agreement.

Mr. Silverman: That is another point. If we are agreed that the Line itself is conceded and that it is conceded that it is a fair Line, we can go on and deal with the other point, whether it has now been established by force or by agreement. I deny that it has been done unilaterally or by force. As I understand the situation, a provisional agreement was reached between Stalin, the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Minister at that time of Poland. As I understand it M. Mikolajczyk was party to the agreement so far as this Line was concerned. It is true that the Polish Provisional Government in London did not endorse it and that M. Mikolajczyk resigned the premiership of Poland because they did not.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend on what authority he said that the Polish

Prime Minister agreed to this? I have not seen it.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend and I are equally in a difficulty, and I sympathise with him and join with him in his protest that none of us have been given enough of the facts. I am only trying to do what he did and reach a fair inference from such facts as are known. It is known that there was a conference, that these three gentlemen were present, that it was announced that a provisional agreement had been reached between them, that M. Mikolajczyk came back to London, that he reported on the conference to his Government, that they did not agree with him, and that he resigned. It is not an unfair inference from those facts that if he had had his way he would still have been Premier of Poland and there would have been no question of anybody imposing anything by force. It is a great pity that he did not do it.
If there was anything wrong ethically with the Curzon Line, it might be a different story. I am dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who concedes that there is nothing much wrong with it as a frontier. If there is anything much wrong with it as a frontier, whatever happened in 1939, I still say it is a pity from Poland's point of view that the Polish Government in London could not agree with its then Premier. If they had done so, there would have been a settlement of this question by agreement. There would have been no dispute, and the Polish Government in London would have been recognised to-day by all the great nations as the lawful Government of Poland, and very soon it would have been back on its own territory and governing it with the consent of everybody. I cannot help feeling it was a very great pity that those concerned in London could not be persuaded to take that view. It would have removed a great many of their difficulties and a great many of the difficulties of the world.
My hon. Friend says, and says very rightly, some things about East Prussia and the population of East Prussia. I take it that his reference to the Atlantic Charter does not affect the Eastern side at all. He is surely not suggesting there ought to be a plebiscite there, that the population on the East of the Curzon Line ought to be consulted? If so, he is on very dangerous ground. There is a


place called Teschen, which was taken by Poland from Czechoslovakia after Munich in September, 1938, and the guarantee to Poland, even of the Western frontier, could not be taken to have included that.

Mr. Raikes: May I ask the hon. Member one question on Teschen? This question has been raised often. Is it not a fact that Teschen was taken by the Poles when Hitler, after Munich, had marched into Czechoslovakia, and so far from Teschen having been taken from Czechoslovakia, Poland only marched in to prevent it being taken by Hitler?

Mr. Silverman: I daresay they marched in with the most altruistic motives in the world, but if they did, and did not desire anything for themselves, I have no doubt they would be perfectly ready to agree, and I think they have already agreed, that it should go back to Czechoslovakia when the time comes. No one would suggest that the Atlantic Charter provision that the population should be consulted by some kind of plebiscite, should apply to circumstances of that kind. Therefore, it cannot apply to the population East of the Curzon Line either. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] For the obvious reason it should be on that side. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not agreed."] My argument has been based on the supposition that that frontier is a fair frontier. I have not heard it challenged. If it is, I will address my argument to the challenge.
East Prussia, I concede, is a totally different case, but after all, the concession of East Prussia to the new Poland was not a Russian of British interest. It was done in order to compensate Poland for the loss of territory on the other side. It may be very wrong, but I have yet to hear that the Polish Government in London have ever repudiated the idea. If Poland does not want it, the Polish Government have only to say so. They have never said so. I am afraid that some members, at any rate, of the Polish Government in London are actuated by ideas of territorial megalomania that go far beyond East Prussia on one side, and far beyond the Curzon Line on the other. I think this case of Poland is a very bad one from my hon. Friend's point of view.

Mr. Stokes: It is only part of the issue. The main issue is whether there shall or

shall not be secret treaties of which this House would not approve.

Mr. Silverman: On the main issue I am with my hon. Friend, as he knows. I only detain the House for a moment longer to say that I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. Even if it involves temporary territorial aggression, no one in his senses would embarrass any Government charged with the successful prosecution of the war by bringing all these issues to the House, or to any assembly, as matters of debate, argument and vote. But I think that when you are dealing with the reconstruction of the world after victory has been achieved, you are in very different country.
I am one of a small group of people in this House who, right from the beginning of this war, have taken the view that, so far from doing any harm to our war effort, it would have been of the greatest possible benefit to our war effort if we had defined and put down in clear terms our aims and objects in the war. I do not mean that we should seek to draw or redraw an exact new political map of Europe. That is not necessary. But at any rate we ought to have been able to make up our minds what our main objects were. We ought to have been able to set them down in clear terms and invited our Allies and others to join with us. There ought not to have been any kind of doubt, ambiguity or hesitation, or doubtful controversial debate about our objects in the war. These ought to have been clearly stated from the start. Enemy peoples ought to have known from the start what we proposed to do after the victory had been achieved.
I have never quarrelled very much with the idea of unconditional surrender. I do not quarrel with it now. On the contrary, I agree with it, but I urge that it should be understood that unconditional surrender is not a policy. Unconditional surrender means that you undertake yourself the sole responsibility for what happens after victory has been achieved. Unconditional surrender means that you do not negotiate with anybody about it, you do not bargain with anybody about it. It surely means also that you know what you want it for. Unconditional surrender, without saying what ultimate purposes you have, is a mere slogan and nothing else. If you get your uncondi-


tional surrender—and I hope we shall get it soon—you are then at the beginning of your problems. You have still to evolve your policy of reconstruction. Why wait until then? Why not do it now? Why not take the House and our Allies into consultation? Why not take the world into consultation, as far as that can be done, in framing a clear picture of the kind of world we want to see, in place of the ugly, murderous world out of which we are emerging?
I think the Government have been rather inclined, because of difficulties and possible disagreements in doing that, to burke the issue, and to cloak the difficulties under this curtain of the reiterated slogan of unconditional surrender. Those of us who object to it, are not objecting because we want to make terms with Hitler—far from it I do not want to make terms with Hitler, or the Nazis and Fascists, in Germany, or anywhere else. I want unconditional surrender so far as they are concerned. But I do want to see a clean, decent, sane world afterwards. I want the responsibility which we assume when we insist on unconditional surrender to be adequately discharged. I want it to be clear on what lines and on what basis we propose to rebuild shattered Europe and the shattered world. I think the Government are very much to blame in not having formulated long before this a plan, which would be known and understood, which would be clear and sincere, and accepted by the world, so that wherever there may be people prepared to support us in rebuilding the world along those lines they would know that we were with them, and that we would support them.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I find myself in the odd position of disagreeing with my colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Colonel Sir A. Evans) and, for once, agreeing largely with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I think the hon. Member has done a good service in raising this matter to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend says that the hon. Member has always tried to cause trouble, and that this is not the time to embarrass the Government by expressing convictions upon matters of foreign policy. With great respect, I think that is an entirely wrong attitude to take.

Sir A. Evans: I said that this was not the time. After all, if we are to discuss matters of such importance as this, it is essential that hon. Members should have an opportunity of informing themselves of the facts and of hearing from the Government their views on the situation. They should not have to deal with the matter on what I might call an irresponsible occasion, on the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Baxter: I do not think it is an irresponsible occasion. The House of Commons is a very adjustable place, where Debates of great value can quite suddenly and unexpectedly arise, such as the Debate to-day, which none of us expected. Nor do I think it right that on matters of eternal values, we should have Government construction. I feel that there is altogether too much legalism and expediency in our foreign policy to-day. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are tried to the utmost of their patience; they have had a hard task and carry enormous burdens, but there is always a danger that Ministers who are too close to things will lose track of the philosophy which must be behind Government and foreign policy, as it must be behind human life. There is an old joke to the effect that we never like to have a Foreign Secretary who speaks French, because he becomes too much involved with French influence and French policy. There is a danger of the Foreign Secretary of this country becoming too intimate with the personalities and problems on the European chess board.
It seems to me that we have to fall back upon the eternal governing principles which have made this country so honoured through the centuries. None of us would try to minimise the dreadful problem of Poland, quite outside the justification of Russia's case and the necessities of Russia's strategical position, but is there any one of us who does not wish with all his heart that Stalin would approach the matter in an entirely different spirit?

Mr. Silverman: What other line could he possibly have taken?

Mr. Baxter: There is a beautiful word in our language, "magnanimity." There has not been to my knowledge, in the last two years, a speech by this great and mighty leader of the Russian people, expressing any warmth or pity or feeling for the Polish people.

Mr. Silverman: Surely the hon. Member, who I know speaks with a great sense of responsibility, is speaking too hastily now. There have been a number of speeches quite recently in which the Russian Premier has said how much he wants a strong and independent Poland. This difficulty about the frontier, which has been handled with great magnanimity and great patience over a long period of time, was only settled as it was when it became necessary in order to advance towards the West. So many people who talk about this Polish issue seem to wish that the Russians had been able to advance from Russia to Berlin without touching Polish territory at all. Unfortunately, geographically that was not possible.

Mr. Baxter: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's interruption, but it does seem to me that there are times when the legal mind does not speak for this country as well as the more simple and uninstructed mind that I am going to use to-day. Is it true or is it not true that there have been cruel deportations from Poland? I am not speaking with the least idea of embarrassing the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, but I am not happy about the dexterity of our dealing with foreign Powers in Europe. It seems to me that we might get back to very simple things, one of which is our desire that the weak shall be free, and to give every country the right to choose its own form of government. We ought to be true to those who have been our honourable friends, and no considerations of policy, or strategy, or expediency should take away from a nation or from a man the right to be true to those whom they regard as their friends in this cause for which we are all fighting.

Mr. Cove: Including India.

Mr. Baxter: We went into this war for Poland, because Poland represented a point in the history of humanity, and it has not been made easier for us by the Russian Government, who want us to stand aside and see the Polish nation treated almost as if it were an enemy State. Look at the attack this morning on General Bor, the man who led the tragic but wonderfully brave rising of patriots in Warsaw. To-day, he is accused by Moscow of being a quisling. It is in "The Daily Worker" and I presume that it has come from reliable

sources. Is there any man in this country who believes for one moment, that General Bor was a traitor to Poland? I doubt it. From the same source, we are told that the Polish Government here are in league with the Germans. We must realise that Poland and Russia have to live together, but if this is the approach to it, God help them.
If ever this troubled world was in need of magnanimity, consideration and compassion, that moment is now. Poland has seldom or never, in the history of mankind, had such a chance of starting well. I sometimes wonder whether the Kremlin, in their lack of knowledge of the Western world, realises the immense reservoir of good will in this country from which they could draw from all classes. There is no longer the prejudice against Russia that there was formerly. We realise that Russia has emerged into the world as one of the greatest, and perhaps the greatest, dominating factor in the future. We want to do business with Russia and march side by side with her, but we do not want to make concessions to Russia of everything in which we believe. That matter should be taken into account. If we are to be true to our friends and to our alliances and ideals, I wonder whether the party opposite would consider their attitude towards such men as King George of Greece and this young boy, King Peter of Yugoslavia.
There is too facile a tendency among many hon. Gentlemen opposite to brand as Fascists everybody who disagrees with them. King George of Greece was responsible head, with Metaxas, of the Greek nation when it gallantly declared war against Italy. When Germany went to the rescue of Italy, there was nothing finer in the whole of this war than the determination of Greece to fight on against Germany as well. It may well be that, when history can unfold the whole story, that delay, caused by the heroism of Greece, will be shown to have postponed the attack on Russia sufficiently to save Russia. The Greeks fought on; the King left at the last moment to fight in Crete, and eventually came away to this country. I hope that Scotsmen will not object to this; but is it English, is it as we understand the word "England," to sneer at and deride the man who was the head of the nation at that time, and to call him a quisling and a traitor now?
What happened in Yugoslavia? Prince Paul had gone to sell his country across the carpet to Hitler. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] At any rate, he went there, and was induced to agree to the ultimate sale of his country. The effect was the same; the sale was projected. Back in Belgrade a boy king and the brave men who surrounded him decided that they would not dishonour their country, that they would go to war against Germany, and take the spear of the German Army in their breasts. He was a boy, but a boy of 15 can have great courage and vision. Maybe he was romantic; perhaps my hon. and learned Friend opposite can find some legal explanation. To us it was a great moment. Yet to-day this boy is referred to on the opposite benches far too often as a silly child of no consequence, a boy of no character. We cannot go wrong in foreign policy if we adhere to the values which have instinctively governed this country for so many centuries; which we who were born in the outer Empire have in our blood; which built up this great Empire, which has rallied twice in these two world wars; and which to-day, with all the criticisms of this country, are the great hope of every country in Europe—because it is to England that Europe looks for the future. Therefore, I once more say that I am very grateful to my hon. and troublesome friend the Member for Ipswich for turning this available hour into what I think has been a very useful discussion.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) suggests has been our traditional principle, and should be now, but I gather that it was the principle of standing by our friends. I should have thought that, when we were dealing with Greece, our friends in Greece were the Greek people, the Greek army, the Greek soldiers who fought against the invaders, those who composed E.A.M. and fought with the guerillas. But as there seems to be no shadow of doubt that the great majority of the Greek people are republican and do not want the return of the King, because of his association with the tyrannous Metaxas régime, I cannot understand how, in logic, the hon. Member suggests that we should stand by the King, when it is clear that the great majority of the people do not want him.

Mr. Baxter: I do not mean that we should try to force the Greek King on the Greek people, but that we should, in our references in this House, treat him with respect, and not as a traitor.

Mr. Strauss: We are entitled in this House to speak as we like, and the more frankly the better. In my opinion, in view of the past association of the Greek King with the Metaxas régime, which was a horrible Fascist régime, the language of progressive people in this country has been very restrained.

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. There used to be in this House an understanding that the heads of foreign States should not be referred to in derogatory language, of the kind used by the hon. Member just now. Is not the Greek King at present the head of a friendly country; and cannot the same be said of King Peter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): While the situation in many countries is difficult, it is generally left to hon. Members to give their own opinions on such subjects, within reasonable limits, remembering that it is very easy in our language to say something which may be offensive to other people.

Mr. Strauss: I was only referring to this matter in passing, to make the point that our friends in Greece are the Greek people as a whole, and that it is quite illogical, in view of their feelings about the King, that we should give our support to him as against the expressed view of the people. I leave that matter there.
I want to speak about the wider issue referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), particularly in regard to Poland. A great deal has been said this afternoon about dexterity and manipulation, and so on. I submit that we should still consider these problems not so much as questions of power politics, in the sense of what one nation can do or cannot do, but in relation to certain basic principles on which Members of the Labour Party should at least be agreed. The principles are two. One is embodied in the Atlantic Charter, which was supported, I think, not only by everybody in this House, but by everybody in every democratic country throughout the world. That is, that there


should be no transfers of territory without the consent of the people concerned.
The other principle—perhaps "principle" is not quite the word—arises from the first. It is to consider all these problems from the angle of what is most likely to bring about peace and contentment in Europe, and to make a future war less likely. It is from that angle that I feel that this problem should be regarded, and from that angle primarily. In the past I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne speak very eloquently, and indeed vehemently, on behalf of that first principle in the Atlantic Charter, because it is the right principle. It is certainly a Socialist principle, that there should be no transfer of territory or populations on any large scale unless it is going to lead to the greater contentment of the people concerned. It may very well be—and, in fact, I have said so in this House—that probably it would lead to the greater contentment of the peoples concerned if those who live on the East of the Curzon Line were incorporated in the Soviet Union. That is my view. But the people who live there may take a different view. There has so far been no agreement whatever about the transfer of that territory. No Polish Government has agreed to it. I would point out, particularly to my hon. Friends, that the Polish Socialists have not agreed to it. People living there have not agreed to it, because they have not been asked. There has been no referendum nor has an election been held. The only people who have agreed are the Lublin Committee.
It may be perfectly right that this territory should be transferred, but there is a question of principle involved that is going to arise throughout Europe, and I, as a Socialist, would be very much happier if my belief that this suggestion is justified could be confirmed by some sort of plebiscite among the people concerned, as soon as the war is over. There is no reason, as I see it, why it should be finally concluded now. There could be a provisional government meanwhile. I would like to see, not only here, but in regard to all the major territorial adjustments proposed by various nations for the post-war period, that the people concerned should be asked their views. That is the principle which has been agreed and accepted by the whole democratic world in the Atlantic Charter, and I think it is tragic that it has now been aban-

doned. It is tragic, not only for the people concerned, who are going to be pushed about here and there as on a draughts-board but because I believe the violation of that principle is going to make another war highly probable.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is not being quite fair about this. This is not a transfer of territory in the ordinary sense. This is territory which the Russians have always said, and most of us agree with them, had been wrongfully taken by the Poles from the Russians when the Russians were weak. The Russians had to advance over that territory if they had to make any advance, and, if they did not make any advance, we were all sunk together. Was it very unreasonable for the Russians to say, with regard to this territory, which should never have been Polish and was never rightfully Polish, "We want this settled, and we are prepared to make compensation and do everything we can to make a strong, free and independent Poland, but this bit of territory——"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is not the hon. Member's intervention getting near to being a second speech?

Mr. Strauss: I think they are perfectly entitled to put forward the demand for the return of that territory, and, if their case is strong, as I believe it is, I think it would be acceptable in any international conference afterwards, particularly if the same view were taken by the majority of the people concerned. Certainly, some areas which Russia is claiming to-day are almost wholly Polish. All that could be a matter of compromise.

Sir Geoffrey Mander: I am not quite clear how far my hon. Friend goes. Would he apply the principle he lays down to enemy territory, and insist that the Germans in East Prussia or other places must give their consent and be consenting parties, before there can be any transfer of territory?

Mr. Strauss: The Government of this country signed the Atlantic Charter, which said that the Allies required no aggrandisement of territory, and that there should be no transfers of territory without the consent of the people concerned. This was accepted by everybody at the time, and not challenged in any quarter, to apply to all territories,


including enemy territories. It was only subsequently that various nations have put forward demands for cutting off a bit of Germany, saying that the Charter was never meant to apply to the enemy. If it was never meant to apply to Germany, to whom was it meant to apply? Nobody has ever answered that question. Of course, it was meant to apply to Germany. I say that, for the future peace of Europe, it is the height of folly to make any considerable transfers of population without the consent of the people involved. A minor frontier adjustment here and there may be highly desirable from every point of view but, when you are proposing to move, as these proposals suggest, 7,500,000—that is the population of East and West Prussia, North and South Silesia, involved in this Polish issue—without taking into account the feelings of the present population, I say that, to move all those people against their will, people who have lived there for generations, is not likely to lead to a permanent settlement of European affairs.

Sir G. Mander: Have they not gone already? Are they not going as fast as they can? The transfer is taking place.

Mr. Strauss: Maybe they are. I do not know what the situation is, but the point I am trying to make is really a simple one. In this Polish issue, there are certain matters of important principle involved which affect the whole European scene. I would like to see these principles, which I believe are correct principles, carried out and accepted in the Russo-Polish dispute and elsewhere.
If the Russian demand in this case is a perfectly sound and good one, as I believe it is, I do not understand their suggestion that Poland should be compensated by taking over part of another country. If the people on the East of the Curzon Line will be happier if they were part of the Soviet Union, I cannot understand why the question of compensation arises at all. I think that, if compensation is to be forthcoming, it should be on the lines of making the Polish worker and peasant a more prosperous and contented person than before by giving him, from Germany and elsewhere, machinery, fertilisers, and capital of all sorts. I am convinced that if Poland is to take over the territory which is suggested, she would be creating, on her West, a permanently

hostile people, more hostile than before. We should be doing our best to plant the seeds of hatred and discontent in the hearts of people now children who will grow up and want, inevitably, to go back to the land in which they lived as children and their parents and grandparents.
I should have thought that, if we wanted a settlement of Europe, not only should we disarm Germany so that she may never have the power of going to war again, but we should see that the German people lose the will to go to war again. But here you are presenting the young people of Germany to-day with such grievances, that the time will inevitably arise when they will want to readjust their frontiers, peaceably, if possible, and if not, by other means.
I suggest that we should look upon all these matters from the point of view of these basic principles, because they apply everywhere through Europe. If we once say "Good-bye" to these principles, and everybody tries to get bits of territory here, there and everywhere, putting forward claims which may or may not be good, that process of bargaining will end in chaos, and we shall make almost certain that there will be another war. I feel that my hon. Friends and I and those who think along these lines should press, to-day and constantly, for an adherence to these principles set out very admirably in the Atlantic Charter, which not only hon. Members on this side of the House but the whole Parliament and country agreed are the only principles upon which permanent peace can be secured.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I find myself largely in agreement with what the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) has just said. There is one thing that is quite certain. If at the end of this war there is a sphere of influence, say, a Russian sphere of influence over half of Europe or a British sphere of influence over the other half, we shall be inevitably drifting towards another great conflagration at an early date. The only hope for the future lies in the nations of Europe deciding by free consent their own forms of government, whatever that government may be, and providing that position is reached, I would sooner see States in Europe adopting forms of government of which I disapprove than I would see them com-


pelled to accept forms of government which are contrary to their desires.
I feel bound to say a word or two with regard to Poland. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was nearly right, but not quite. He said that the Curzon Line had been really agreed upon by both sides at the end of the last war. As a demarcation line, yes, but the hon. Member will bear in mind that it was also stated that that was to be a demarcation line subject to any rights that Poland might have East of that line. The hon. Member also left out a further point that the Russians themselves stated directly that, with that demarcation line, they were prepared to offer Poland something rather more than the Curzon Line. The Curzon Line at that time did not include Eastern Galicia as part of Russia. The Curzon Line pressed for by Russia to-day includes Eastern Galicia as well as territories which are East of that line. I do not regard the pre-war boundaries of Poland as being sacrosanct, but it is a tall order that Russia, who not only recognised the Riga Line but re-ratified it in 1932 and 1934 and re-ratified it again in 1941, should suddenly say, "We have come to the conclusion that we are going to have half the territory of pre-war Poland." I would be willing, like the hon. Member opposite, to see these Eastern territories, if it could be done, going into other areas if they wished to do so. Russia because she is powerful—and she is powerful—because she has fought well—and she has fought well—is saying, "I am going to take so and so not because of the right of it but because I want it."

Mr. Silverman: When did Russia say that? Surely the Russian claim has been that they were having it because, on the merits, they were entitled to it and because the Polish authority had agreed to it.

Mr. Raikes: It is easy to talk about the merits, but it was on the merits that the Russian Government four times ratified the Treaty of Riga. Why has the Treaty of Riga suddenly become out of date? The hon. Member cannot find an answer to that. M. Stalin has not attempted to find it. I want to go a little beyond that. I think that a Debate like this is a good thing, as we are able to clear up matters which it is not possible to clear up at any other time. It has been

said that if Mikolajcyk had remained Prime Minister all would have been well and there would not have been any of this trouble. The Curzon Line was not the only thing considered at Moscow. At Moscow the Russian terms were clearly laid down—first of all the Curzon Line; secondly, the majority of the new Government were to be members of the Lublin Committee; and thirdly, Poland was to be compensated by certain territories in the West subject to conditions which would mean that Russia would have control of Poland's outlet to the sea. Whatever Mikolajcyk agreed to, he did not agree to those terms in Moscow. He came back and said he must discuss those matters with the Cabinet, and that as far as he was concerned, the terms, as they stood, could not be accepted. The Polish Cabinet met, and at their first meeting they unanimously decided that they were not prepared to agree to the Russian terms, which covered all those other things to which I have referred. Later there was disagreement between Mikolajcyk and the majority of his Cabinet as to whether it would be worth while to go back to Moscow and negotiate on the basis of those terms and try to get something better. It is not for me to express an opinion one way or the other, but Mikolajcyk took the view that it might be well to negotiate, and the majority of his Government took the view that further negotiations would not be worth while on those terms because they were already so bad. That, I understand, was the position of Poland, and it is rather a different picture from that which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne painted.

Mr. Silverman: Surely the picture which the hon. Member is giving is much more unfavourable to the London Government than the picture I gave.

Mr. Raikes: I have some difficulty in following that intervention. There was this difference of view in the London Government. The terms meant to the majority the end of Polish independence and they may well be right. Mikolajcyk felt that it might still be worth while to try and negotiate something better than that which the Russians had offered. But the question of Poland is really only a small part of the picture. It is an important part. If the future of Poland is to be decided not by the will of the Poles


themselves, or indeed by the will of many Germans on the Oder, but by the decision of Russia and by hat they want in contradiction of their own treaty signed and re-ratified time after time, the whole future for peace is not very great. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it would not be a satisfactory arrangement by which Poland was given completely non-Polish territories as part of the west. I would accept the corridor, because I think the corridor is a different matter, but to say that Poland is to have a large proportion of territory to the west in exchange will not be of any use.
I sometimes think that His Majesty's Government do not always sufficiently realise the degree of misery and despair caused by the moving of millions of people of different races from their homes in order to make a geographical settlement. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is interjecting mildly to himself and I know that he will not agree with what I say, but that will not prevent me from saying it. I recall to the attention of the House, and particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a decree which has recently been issued by the Lublin Committee—it was signed by President Bierut and reported in the "Daily Telegraph" of 20th January—which called for the round-up of "irreconcilable members of the Polish Home Army and followers of the London Government." It urged all armed forces in the liberated areas to co-operate with the Soviet and Polish military authorities to outlaw "the Home Army murderers who are provoking civil strife." Whatever our views of the future of Poland may be, the Government which the right hon. Member the Under-Secretary is representing on that Bench at the moment is a Government which still recognises the London Government of Poland.
It is a Government which has power to speak to Marshal Stalin and inform him of our own views, and I think that whenever the meeting of the great three takes place it must be urged that if there is to be any hope for future friendly relationships between East and West, you cannot have decree after decree issued by the present Lublin Committee, recognised by Russia, calling for the death penalty on all persons not connected with Lublin, for hundreds of thousands of these people have fought against Germany in the

underground movement for a considerable number of years.
The same thing applies in part to Yugoslavia. I do not want to take any side between one party and another in Yugoslavia, but I say again that unless the future of Yugoslavia is settled by free elections and by a fair vote of the population, we shall have no peace and no settlement in that country. It is not a question of whether there is a Communist Government, or a non-Socialist Government, or a Radical Government in Yugoslavia. If we are to have peace in that country it is our duty to press and use our influence to see that the country has the right to choose what form of government it wishes after the war. We have a very great responsibility towards Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia came into this war under almost impossible conditions. The leaders of Yugoslavia sacrificed themselves and their country for an ideal, and the least that Yugoslavia can ask for is that at any rate it shall be made plain by popular vote whether they want Marshal Tito or someone else as their Prime Minister and leader in the days that come after the war.
Other countries will also be involved, but if only this House can come clearly down to the real principle in the years after the war—I do not believe there is a great party difference over this—that we want to see a free Europe, a Europe not carved up in spheres of influence, a Europe in which the ordinary man and ordinary woman can live in his own home, in his own place, without being forcibly transferred, a Europe in which Governments can operate by free consent of the peoples themselves, a Europe in which the small State will have the rule of law enforced in its favour as against the great—if we build such a Europe we shall have peace; but if we have to consent to a dictatorship Europe where Russian influence may be building spheres of influence in one part so that she forces us to set up something to offset them, perhaps, in the West, we shall not have peace but an uneasy armistice, and in that uneasy armistice we shall sow the seeds of a greater and worse war than the present one.

5.14 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: I think it is necessary that someone from my party should make quite clear what our views are on this question.


For my own part, I am in very general agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and with the very grave words which have come with great significance from the other side of the House. I speak with all the more confidence because I know that any words from an obscure back-bencher cannot possibly embarrass the Prime Minister or the Government in any negotiations they may be conducting at present or in the future. It may be well, however, to assure the Prime Minister that the country as a whole is not quite as acquiescent in everything he does as is the present House of Commons, that there is a feeling in the country that at this very moment we may be hanging a tragedy around the necks of our children and our grandchildren.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Sir A. Evans) protested violently against any discussion of peace negotiations before peace had actually been signed or before the enemy had been conquered. I can only say this, that I am convinced that unless we discuss now, in general, the principles which we would see applied at once, and in the future, we shall never have an opportunity of doing so. That was the great trouble after the last war—when the time came for the country as a whole to make its voice heard in the councils of Europe, it simply was not heard, because it had not prepared itself, it had not informed itself of the problems, and the people in the Government, the people responsible at the time, had not educated the country to the problems that were to arise and which they knew perfectly well were to be the issues of the future.
Mussolini once used a phrase which has been condemned at large—sacro egoisimo—the holy or the sacred egoism. I appeal to this House to use a little of that sacro egoisimo in its proper sense. One would think that we are the most altruistic people in the world. We discuss the fate of Poland, we discuss the future of Germany, we discuss what Greece is going to do, what America feels, but we never think of the one thing of which the House ought to think before anything else—what will happen to our own children and grandchildren after this war. I appeal to the House to think of that and to keep that in their minds when

we are discussing the fate of other countries, because the fate of our children and our grandchildren will depend directly on whether we take the right line and whether we judge rightly in the matter of the external politics of Europe. That will depend very much on the amount of discipline which this House exercises over the Foreign Office.
At the end of the last war I was interested in a society called the Union of Democratic Control. At that time, we found it was very necessary to protest in season and out of season against the secret commitments which were made then by the Government. There has been no difference, as far as I can see, in the last 30 years in the method which the Foreign Office have followed from that time to this. In one respect they have not learned a single lesson from the last war. They have not learned that they ought, first of all, to have learnt some indication of the feeling of the country in general, not merely the feeling of Parliament but of the country, before they enter into undertakings of which we know nothing. With those words, I will sit down. I am glad to have had the opportunity of stating a view with which I am confident most of my party will agree.

Commander Prior: If I may say so with all courtesy, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) made a most pro-Nazi speech, a speech which will give immense satisfaction to the German High Command. What we are all searching for is the peace of the world, not only in our own time but in the future. I have had dealings with many young Nazis. I picked one out of the sea not long ago, and the first thing he said to me was, "When we invade England." I asked him how he proposed to do it. These young men now living in Germany love war. They are filled with vengeance and the lust for blood. What we are all searching for now is the peace of the world. How is that to be gained? Hon. Members have taken exception to the transfer of East Prussia. I am unaware that any great musicians, authors or artists ever came out of that country.

Professor Gruffydd: The greatest classical scholar in the world, Mollendorf-Williamowitz, came out of East Prussia.

Commander Prior: I am unaware of him, but let me correct myself. Many more soldiers and generals have come out of East Prussia than men of peace. We are told that we have to get the consent of the East Prussians before their will to war is stifled for good. Exception is taken to the French advancing to their natural boundary, the Rhine. In my humble opinion unless the means to make war are removed from Germany we will always have war. The Germans want war; they are thirsting for vengeance. How is that to be stopped unless by the dismemberment of Germany, and the break-up of their war potential?

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I do not think I have ever intervened before in a Debate on foreign policy, but I am moved to do so to-day by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I want to make it clear that on this issue I am very pro-Ipswich and very anti-South Cardiff. I think it is high time that House of Commons talked about this matter, and here may I say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) present, because she has repeatedly pointed out in articles and elsewhere the lack of control over foreign policy in this country. I well remember the Union of Democratic Control. I remember coming back as a soldier from the last war, and those post-war years at Oxford, when we thought we were going to have some control over the foreign policy of this country. If I may say so with all respect, to-day's Debate has been all the better because the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have not been here. This has been the kind of discussion I hear all over the country. In Army groups, "pubs" and elsewhere the ordinary common people are discussing our foreign policy with great doubts. I have heard this Christmas what has been said in ordinary "pubs" in Dorset, where there are many commonsense people, in the constituency of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I would beg those who do not agree with me to read an article by Mr. Charles Morgan writing under the thin disguise of "Menander," in "The Times Literary Supplement," which deals with discussion on the "wooden benches."
I have a feeling of guilt, as one who was in the Government before the war. I remember only too well that I was in a Government position when the agreement was made with Germany about submarines. I remember the hesitancy about the whole of our Spanish policy. There was nothing between the sides of the House, so far as I am concerned about this; it was much deeper than that. Every discussion was vitiated by this Communist-Fascist cross-section. We never heard the view of Britain. As I read "Soviet War News," which comes in a little packet to my breakfast table, and the Lublin Pol-Press communiqués, I see, in Russia, a clear-cut policy. They know what they want, and so far as I am concerned they appeal to my interests when they talk about Lublin, because they say they are starting the schools again. I do not know whether they are or not; I do not know whether to believe a word of it. I am told by hon. Members that it is all puppetry and nonsense. But at any rate it is power politics, and how can power politics sit down side by side with the Atlantic Charter? My hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) talked in eloquent terms about the Atlantic Charter. I have heard it ridiculed and laughed at by many of my Conservative friends, who say that it is just a sheet of paper. It may well represent deep feeling in the country, and so far as I am concerned it does represent something. But it has not become the touchstone of our foreign policy. What is that touchstone? What is it we stand for, as distinct from the Communist clear-cut creed which has cells in France, Greece, and Poland and, for all I know, in this country? The cells may not necessarily be connected, but they talk about a common thing. It is a common conception of society.
I am not so sure that we have not, in this Debate, arrived a little nearer to the kind of unity which must be forged if we are to succeed. You cannot force unity on the people. There is a great deal of nonsense in the talk about the unity of the people of this country, which has been forced on us by Hitler. If, out of the sufferings and experiences of this war, we are to build a unity which represents the voice of Britain we must agree on the main principles of our policy. The only point which seems to have been agreed upon


by every hon. Member is that we should let each country choose its own form of government. But is that a sufficiently clear and heroic policy? Can we say that, in accents which only the Prime Minister himself could use, to the people of Europe? How is this country going to talk about the glory of Europe—which is a phrase the Prime Minister used the other day—and about being good Europeans, if there is a suspicion, at any rate on this side of the House, that arrangements have already been made about spheres of influence? I do not know.
Unlike the Debates in which we tend, inevitably, to have long speeches from the Government benches, when the Prime Minister comes back from a conference, there has emerged to-day a further principle, and that is that hon. Members who usually take opposite sides, Royalist and Republicans alike, have agreed that there is something very unsatisfactory about the condition of Poland at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, and, certainly, hon. Members on the other side, seemed to be in very strong agreement on this one point. I wish there could be more Debates of this kind, of an unofficial sort, where we get not merely reports from conferences, and where the House of Commons—it is better to do it here than upstairs in a foreign affairs committee—can work out what it thinks and can, possibly, influence the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary before they go to future Conferences.

5.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): I commence the few remarks which I desire to make on the basis of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I have no complaint—and I am sure the House has no complaint—at my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) initiating this Debate. I would have liked, of course, a little more time in which to deal with some of the points which have been raised to-day, although my hon. Friend pointed out very clearly that the Debate was not initiated for the purpose of a reply but to create much more interest in foreign affairs than he thought existed. For that reason I can say, not only of his speech but of those subsequently delivered, that

we have had some interesting speeches, covering much of the same ground as previous speeches but in some ways laying greater emphasis on the points that have been put, and the Debate has been most interesting in the sense that we have seen a rather strange line-up, the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) violently disagreed with him.
In almost all the speeches points of very high policy have been raised, points which have previously been made and fully dealt with. I know of no time during my stay in the House when so much time has been given to foreign affairs as during the last month or five weeks. Six whole days have been devoted to these very important questions, three very long and important speeches have been made by the Prime Minister and three by the Foreign Secretary. Poland has been very fully dealt with—I am sure a number of my hon. Friends will say not satisfactorily, but the Prime Minister has taken the House into his complete confidence and pointed out the difficulties that have arisen, and there can be no ambiguity at all in our minds as to the position of the Government. The same can he said of Greece—no subject has been debated more fully during the last fortnight or three weeks—the Baltic States, Yugoslavia and many other matters, and I feel that there is nothing I can usefully add to the statements of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member for Ipswich questioned the statement of the Foreign Secretary that no secret engagement had been entered into at the conferences which he and the Prime Minister had attended. As far as I know, that still stands, and there is nothing further that I can say on that matter. The hon. Member for South-East Essex raised the question of certain decrees which have been issued by the Lublin Committee. I will certainly see that this matter is brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. The hon. Member wanted it made clear that whichever leader controls or whatever Government governs Yugoslavia should be appointed by popular vote. I think it has been made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister that in each of the liberated countries opportunities must be


given for a popular vote of the people to decide their Government. That still stands.
I wish there was a little more confidence reposed in the Government in dealing with these deeply important matters. One would imagine that it was the British Government that was entirely responsible for framing the new world policy. The British Government are working in the closest possible co-operation with their Allies, America, Russia and France, and the smaller nations are being taken into consultation in connection with matters of very high policy. I have no doubt that at the forthcoming conference—where and when it is to be held one cannot say—many of the matters that have been discussed to-day will be subjects for consideration, and that after their report is given to the House by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the House will have the satisfaction that it usually has as the result of conferences of this kind attended by representatives of the great Allied nations.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was quite proper but it did not enlighten us very much. It was typical of a Minister in this Government saying as little as possible. In that respect my right hon. Friend has, of course, succeeded very well indeed. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Sir A. Evans) was very critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for raising this issue of foreign affairs at all; he added that his speech was mischievous and embarrassing. I can tell him from my experience in this House that no one ever reaches the Front Government bench at any time unless he is mischievous and embarrassing to the Government. I fear indeed that if my hon. Friend persists in what he has done to-day he may arrive there himself ultimately.

Mr. Muff: Will my hon. Friend tell us how he got on the Front Bench in 1924?

Mr. Davies: By not saying too many nice things of the Tory Government of the day. I do not know as much about foreign affairs as some hon. Members, and

I envy them their wider knowledge. I have, however, been in Poland and East Prussia and without very intimate knowledge of those parts I have a fair idea of what the people of those territories think. I have come to the conclusion that it is as necessary to find out what the foreigner thinks of us, as to say what we think of him. The Polish question does, of course, provide a puzzle; and my right hon. Friend who represents the Foreign Office will forgive me if I tell him bluntly that the average individual in this country is completely unable to understand how it comes about that there is a Polish Government in London which our Government recognises to the full, and which is apparently living at our expense, and that our Ally, Russia, recognises another Government in Lublin, inside Poland. It does not require a university education to make a person bewildered at that state of affairs; and my right hon. Friend has said nothing which would help us to clear away that difficulty. It is an impossible situation; and when the "great Three," as they are called, meet, one of the first things they will have to do is to clear away that difficulty of two Allies supporting separate governments who claim to represent the very same nation. Then somebody has repeated to-day that the whole of the German people must be held responsible for what has been done in this war. How simple! I wish that they would read the history of the Napoleonic wars——

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it not a fact that Himmler, in his message yesterday, stated that the whole German people must be held responsible?

Mr. Davies: I do not descend so low as to read or believe what Himmler says; and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should do so. The main point that emerges from this Debate is whether Great Britain will lend its power to see to it at the end of the war, whoever are our Allies or our enemies, it shall be laid down as a fundamental principle of British policy that any people living in any territory anywhere, shall have the right to decide for themselves what form of government they want.

Mr. Baxter: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that when the war is over, the Germans should be allowed to elect a Nazi Government?

Mr. Davies: I feel like Voltaire about that interruption. He said:
I disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it.
That is my philosophy. If the German people were foolish enough to elect a Nazi regime, it would be, in my view, as stupid as if the British working-class elected a Tory Government.

Mr. Lindsay: We have the Russian communiqués taking a completely opposite view, so that there is a war about ideas as well, is there not?

Mr. Davies: That may be so. This is a war of ideas but those ideas are a little bit mixed up with capitalism and rackets of that kind. Let me come to a point which has occurred to me about the Ukrainian problem. It is not commonly known that there are, fighting with the Canadian Forces in Europe, about 6,000 Canadian soldiers of Ukrainian origin; and it may astonish hon. Members to know that I was invited to address them some time ago in spite of the unpopular beliefs I hold. It is as well to understand that these men hold strong views as to whether any portion of the Ukraine should be incorporated in Russia or in Poland. They hold the view that the Ukrainian people should have the right even to determine whether there shall be an independent Ukraine or whether it should be part of the Russian or Polish republics. They are beginning to issue publications in this country giving voice to their views on that. There are more people living in the Ukraine than there are in these islands—about 48,000,000, I believe, That is another problem which may crop up in due course.
Some hon. Gentlemen cannot understand the point of view of my friends on this side about the Kings of Greece and Yugoslavia. I do not pretend to interpret the views of my party on these issues, but I wish that the Yugoslays—and I have been to Yugoslavia, too—and the Greeks had done what they did in Norway. I understand that the present monarch of Norway was actually elected to his post. He will be stronger as a monarch at the end of the war than any other in Europe merely because he was elected by the people. Monarchies have been falling for the past 50 years and are departing slowly from the face of the earth. I do not think that there are more than about 15 left in the world at present.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: They might start coming back again.

Mr. Davies: Some of them are making a desperate attempt to return and they may, of course, succeed. I am not going to argue that in some countries it might not be beneficial to have a limited monarchy; but if monarchies had been as wise as our own they would have retained their power longer than they have done. One hon. Member said that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich was pro-Nazi. It is astonishing that if anybody criticises our Prime Minister he is automatically presumed to be a friend of Hitler. They say that about me sometimes, too.

Mr. Muff: My hon. Friend is a friend of everybody.

Mr. Davies: That is better than hating everybody. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff was annoyed at my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich because he criticised our Prime Minister. Why, he asked, should we embarrass the Prime Minister in present circumstances when we are at war? I remember the Prime Minister only a few years ago sitting below the Gangway and getting up every few months and doing his level best to embarrass the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain.

Mr. Muff: There was not a war on.

Mr. Davies: Of course there was a war on; it was the late Neville Chamberlain who took us into this war. The present Prime Minister embarrassed him to such an extent that he destroyed his spirit and finished him as Prime Minister. Hon. Gentlemen who support the Prime Minister should not complain about others criticising him, because he achieved his power by doing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has been doing to-day.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: The hon. Gentleman is not fair. The present Prime Minister got up, day after day, to warn the House that the country must rearm against the German menace. He was not attacking the Prime Minister of that day.

Mr. Davies: That was his method of embarrassing the Government.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what we are objecting to in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is not his criticisms of the Prime Minister, but the constant championship of a weak peace with Germany?

Mr. Davies: We have not been discussing a weak or a hard peace to-day. I will deal with that point any time that the hon. Gentleman likes, but to-day is not the occasion.

Mr. Lindsay: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has only just come into this Debate. May I tell him that we have had a Debate which has not been confined to the issues referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Davies)? We have been discussing foreign policy for two or three hours.

Mr. Davies: I was diverted by the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was they who led me astray, and they will have to forgive the remarks I have just made. I conclude with this. When millions of young men are fighting, it is a good thing that there is this Parliament where we can debate the issues that have compelled them to fight each other; and whatever our views may be on this war, I trust there is no difference of opinion on the point that Britain shall lend its weight to laying down the principles of a peace that will be durable, and that the next generation shall not suffer the misery that the present generation are suffering in this present struggle.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I regret I did not hear the opening speeches of this Debate. The weather was responsible for my late arrival. I have listened to many foreign affairs Debates in this Chamber, and I have hardly ever had the opportunity to participate in one of them. Listening to these Debates there has always been in my mind my own individual appreciation of what should be the real background of our foreign policy. As I listened to these speeches to-day and on previous days I asked myself this question, Is it possible for us to reconstruct Europe, to save European civilisation, to save the foundation of it, which is freedom? If freedom dies in Europe, European civilisation dies, because for 2,500 years Europe has insistently, if in-

termittently, pursued the splendid dream of human freedom. It is that idea, combined with the Christian religion, which has given Europe its dynamic quality and caused it to permeate and dominate the world. When I listen to these Debates, there often comes back to my mind a phrase of one of the greatest of our archaeologists:
Civilisation is an intermittent phenomenon.
We are apt to forget that nearly all the continents are littered with the remains of extinct civilisations which have had their day and passed away, and that, of those of which we have any records, we read that they imagined themselves to be just as permanent as we think ours to-day.
The appalling suffering which Europe has undergone, the appalling conditions we shall face there, should make us realise that it will be an immense task to reconstruct Europe, let alone to build that "brave new world" which we all talk of, and hope for and dream of. I think we are apt to underestimate this fact, namely, that in either the life of the civilisation or the life of the nation, or of an individual, one must use just as much effort and care and energy in preserving the gains achieved as in preparing for the next advance.
It takes a great deal of work and energy to prevent retrogression. Consider what has happened in Europe. In the greater part, Russia, Poland, a large part of Italy, large parts of France and all Germany, Austria, Hungary, and so on, the whole plant of civilisation has been destroyed—roads and railways, factories and cities and towns, and so on down to the very farm stock, the accumulation of the work of many generations. We can compare a civilisation to a farm. What has taken generations to build a few years of neglect, or folly, or disaster may destroy. We have seen that happen with the "Dust Bowl" in the United States, where farms have been destroyed through neglect and folly.
The second factor is the immense physical deterioration, the increase of diseases, tuberculosis and so on, due chiefly to lack of food, clothing and warmth. Here I would say there is a factor we must take into account in considering our foreign policy. It is that this physical deterioration has increased since the Allied occupation in many countries. At almost


any sacrifice we must take steps to reverse it. Otherwise, the hope of restoring Europe and getting political sanity and stability back will fail, and many in the liberated lands may sigh for the fleshpots of Egyptian, or rather German, servitude. There is another factor to which I must refer, that is, the immense moral deterioration in Europe. In my own life-time, before this war, there has been great deterioration in the moral aspects of our civilisation. To take a small, trifling thing, before the last war one could travel freely anywhere over Europe without passports or identity cards or any kind of identification.
Take a more serious aspect. Before the last war in the days of my youth, if anywhere in Europe one individual appeared to suffer injustice, the whole world protested. There was an instance in the case of Dreyfus in France. We had others, such as when a German officer struck the blind cobbler of Zabern, and all over the world there was a protest. The man was not killed or anything like that; it was merely a brutal act. To-day we are so replete with injustices, cruelties and iniquities that we have become almost immune to pity, and I think we are getting incapable of that righteous and splendid indignation which was found especially, for example, in the voice of Gladstone, which was heard throughout the world and influenced the conscience of mankind. To-day, to take one case, the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) in a recent Debate, referred to the deportees from Poland. As she pointed out, it was not a question of politics, it was a question of common humanity, about which, in the Victorian age, every man and woman in the country would have rallied and tried to do something to ameliorate the position. These people, a million to a million and a half, were deported in 1939, many of them to the wastes of Siberia and some of the Arctic forests. I have heard stories—whether true or not I do not know—that women teachers, women professors from universities and people like that, in summer clothes, were sent to the Arctic and that there they died in great numbers. To-day, hardly a voice is raised——

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Mr. Loftus: —with few honourable exceptions, in Press or in Parliament on behalf of doing something to ameliorate the conditions of the people and to find out what has happened to them in order to try to bring families together again. Now we have entered Europe we shall be met by all the spectres that haunted the entrance to Hades as described by Virgil in Book 6 of the Æneid. Have we any guide posts to help us, when we thread our way through the labyrinth of Europe which is blazing with hates, with fires ready to burst out, and full of appalling unhappiness? Have we any indications to help us, any principles? I suggest—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay)—that the Atlantic Charter does provide us with such principles. I know it is the fashion in some quarters to deride it, but when it was promulgated to the world in 1941 it embodied the hopes and commanded the enthusiastic support of millions of people in this country and throughout the world. That Charter has been flagrantly broken in some instances, and certainly with regard to Poland.
We talk at Dumbarton Oaks and elsewhere of building the peace structure after the war, but treaties broken with the ink scarce dry upon them will be an ill foundation for any enduring peace structure. The Atlantic Charter was not signed in 1941, but it was signed by all the Allied nations on 1st January, 1942, and that ratification had the signatures of the President of the United States, our Prime Minister and of Mr. Litvinov on behalf of the U.S.S.R. Have we any other guidance? I suggest that we have. The Prime Minister gave an admirable farewell message to the Italian people. He put forward there certain tests of freedom. Hon. Members will probably remember that they included freedom of the Press, of criticism of the Government, freedom to form opposition parties, constitutional means of changing the Government, fair play for all citizens and not only for Government officials. He went on to point out that courts of justice should administer known laws, not under pressure from any one party or from the Executive.
The final point, which is enormously important, was freedom from the secret


police, from arrest, from imprisonment without trial and from the concentration camp. It is a melancholy fact that in some of the liberated countries, such as Poland and Yugoslavia, if the facts are as they are reported, the secret police are as numerous and the concentration camps as full as before those countries were liberated. I hope that that is not true; but reports come in to that effect. I believe that the ordinary man and woman in Europe to-day requires, first of all, to be a free citizen, that is, to be able to stand and speak without having to look over his shoulder for fear that anyone may overhear what he says. He wants freedom from the secret police, freedom from the concentration camp. He does not want perpetually violent politics and threats of civil war. He wants stability and freedom, and a chance to rebuild his family life, reconstruct his home, reconstruct his business or occupation. He wants two or three years for recuperation and rebuilding
I believe that we have an enormous moral strength in the world, if we choose to use it. I think the word reverenced us in 1940 and 1941. In all our history, for centuries past, nations have looked to us as the standard-bearer of liberty in the world; and I believe that they are looking to us to-day, as never before, for help, as the only nation who really can help them, who understands them, who can give them what they want—freedom. When they look here they find division, they find fierce controversy, and, what is more astonishing, they find quite sincere individuals, who believe themselves to be the heirs of Byron and Shelley and Mill, the apostles of liberty, advocating methods of government, régimes or would-be Governments such as in Greece, based on methods which would make all the great British apostles of liberty in the past turn with horror in their graves.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) talked about monarchies with a certain depreciation of the monarchical idea. Let us look at the facts. If a would-be Government to-day, basing itself on the concentration camps and on one party, blares forth to the world that it is democratic, we do not look at the facts; we swallow the label. Take two democratic States in Europe, equally happy, equally prosperous, equally free and democratic. One is Switzerland,

a republic, highly decentralised; I suppose the freest nation in the world. Then take a monarchy, Denmark. I have lived there. It is free, happy, extremely democratic. It has had a Socialist Government for the past ten years; a very free people, and yet a monarchy. Do not let us be misled by the labels; let us look at the tests of freedom, those tests of freedom such as were set out by the Prime Minister in that farewell message to the Italian people.
I would add this word about Poland. I think we have to do our utmost, within the frontiers which will be decided for Poland, though not by us or by Poland, to see that Poland gets that government which her people really desire, and, with it, absolute independence. Poland has suffered as no nation in the world has suffered in this war. I would also add a word about Germany. We have heard discussions as to the future of Germany, and the suggestion of moving masses of people from Prussia. We have heard of the Morgenthau plan for reducing Germany to a purely agricultural country, and have read the vague plans set forth in "The Times" yesterday and to-day. What are the essential things that we must do about Germany? They are two. We must make absolutely sure that she cannot rearm; the second thing we ought to endeavour to do is to see that Germany, to the utmost capacity, makes reparation for the material injuries she has done to other countries.
How are we to accomplish these two things? I would throw out the suggestion that Germany should be taken over by an Inter-Allied Economic Commission, which would run the country for many years to come—its agriculture and its industry—and which would, in fact, run the whole economy of the country. That Commission would organise its production, agricultural and industrial, and would allot a certain percentage of that production for the nations which Germany has damaged and a certain percentage to be retained in Germany for home consumption. The effect of that would be an inducement to the Germans to produce. With all production strictly controlled and organised by the Allied Commission, to the benefit of Europe, the more there was produced, the more benefit to Germany. I throw out that as a rough idea worthy of consideration after the war.
I conclude by urging that we should have unity in this country to face the enormously difficult task of rebuilding Europe on a basis of freedom. I think we have to rebuild the physical side, and we have to rebuild respect for law and respect for the moral law. Incidentally, I think the most terrible crime of the many which the Germans committed has been the reintroduction, after centuries, into Europe of the vile use of the varied tortures as instruments of the police, the Government and the courts. I think that is their unforgivable sin against God and man. Europe looks to us. We cannot impose freedom in Europe. We are limited in our powers. But if we could speak for freedom to-day with the voice of a united people, I believe many countries in Europe would achieve genuine freedom, not the mere propaganda variety. This country has a chance I think of rebuilding European civilisation based upon freedom, and a chance of building up a European order which would preserve not only peace, but justice and liberty.

6.16 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) mentioned that in recent years we had ceased to be very much moved by such things as injustices, inhumanities and cruelties. He might have added another thing we have ceased to be moved by as much as perhaps we should be, namely, dishonesty. I make no apology, in the last quarter of an hour of the time which remains to us, for referring to the subject of Greece. I contend that, if the things that were done by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the last Debate on Greece had been done by any Prime Minister and any Foreign Secretary at any time in the reign of Queen Victoria or Edward VII or possibly in the first half of the reign of George V, that Prime Minister and that Foreign Secretary would have fallen. I put it as high as that. It would not be denied that, in so far as Greece is concerned, the centre of gravity of the Prime Minister's speech lay around the subject of hostages. We know now that at the moment he was speaking he knew that E.L.A.S. had begun the systematic and progressive release of hostages a day or two before he was speaking. We know now that it was the fact that E.L.A.S. began that systematic release four days before his speech. That has

been published in the Press from undeniable sources and yet that knowledge was withheld from the world and from this House. The centre of gravity of the Foreign Secretary's speech, on the other hand, revolved around the idea that E.A.M. and E.L.A.S. were breaking to pieces. I will quote a brief sentence:
I submit to the House that the Socialists, the Agrarians and the Popular Democrats, all of whom formed part of E.A.M. in the earlier stages, have announced their decision to break away and have, in one form or another, denounced the activities of their former associates."—(OFFICIAL, REPORT, 19th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 598.)
That was the focal point of his speech. He went on to illustrate this and he fortified his case by special reference to the organisation S.K.E., which is the Socialist Party of Greece. He was, I think, a little hopeful in the way in which he spoke about the "bureau of eight" and the central committee of 20 of this Socialist Party, but when it came to names he only gave the names of four gentlemen who came from the North, from Macedonia. Again, at the moment that the Foreign Secretary was making this speech, he knew, first, that those four gentlemen had never been in any sort or kind of way even so much as local leaders of the Socialist Party. He knew that.

Mr. George Hall: The hon. Gentleman has questioned the integrity and the honesty of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs——

Sir R. Acland: Exactly.

Mr. Hall: —and the Prime Minister. May I say that the information which was given to the House by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was information which was sent them from Greece and even yet there has been nothing, as far as I know, that has taken place which in any way questions the information which was then given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: rose——

Sir R. Acland: I am not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) has made what are obviously very serious charges——

Sir R. Acland: Yes, they are.

Mr. Hogg: He has accused the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of—I think I am using his actual word—dishonesty, and he proceeds now to make a speech about it in which he gives what he considers to be grounds for those charges. On this point of Order may I say that the one member of the Government at the moment present, who is competent to deal with foreign policy, has already exhausted his right to speak. Is it really in Order to make these serious charges?

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. Is this not an obstructionist speech and not a point of Order?

Sir R. Acland: rose——

Mr. Hogg: Is it desirable, without any notice, and when the only available member of the Government has exhausted his right to speak, to fling these charges of dishonesty down, without putting a substantive Motion as the Rules of the House provide?

Major Procter: Further to that point of Order. Is it in Order for a Member of this House to make such terrible charges against responsible people without giving one iota of evidence that those statements——

Mr. Driberg: Responsible people should not tell terrible lies——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not gather that the hon. Member is making charges of personal dishonesty against the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is alleging errors of fact, but I am listening to him.

Major Procter: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Bevan: Listen to some facts.

Sir R. Acland: rose——

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Rules of the House provide that where the conduct or the personal honour of a Member of this House is affected, a substantive Motion is required? Is it not also a fact that the hon. Baronet has clearly stated that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are guilty of dishonesty? I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule as to whether or not the term "dishonesty"——

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman is trying to talk the time out.

Mr. Bevan: May I beg you, Sir, to consider that we have now been very nearly five minutes on this matter, and no point of Order has yet been raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). The Chair ought not, in my submission, to acquiesce in what now amounts to obstruction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is making a reflection on the Chair which is quite unjustified. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is right in part, but I am not satisfied that there has been any reflection on the personal integrity of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir R. Acland: Let me put it this way; perhaps it will avoid these points of Order, and allow the facts to be stated before the end of my speech. The Foreign Secretary quoted the names of these four men as signatory to a statement made by the S.K.E.—the Socialist Party—took as proof of his whole thesis that E.A.M. were breaking up. I will not speak about the personal knowledge of the Foreign Secretary but I will say that from information I have received from reputable British citizens in this country, it is certain that the Foreign Office knew, and from its great card-index must have known, that these four men whose names the Foreign Secretary quoted had never been at any time even so much as local members of the Socialist Party in the time before the war.
Also, at the moment at which the Foreign Secretary was speaking in the House, and was saying that E.A.M. was flaking away, I assert that the Foreign Office knew that not one reputable, recognised, known Socialist or trade union leader of any stature whatever had dissociated himself from E.A.M. and had congratulated General Scobie and General Plastiras. Therefore, I do not now say with whom the individual dishonesty lies, but I do say that this House of Commons has been deceived and that this country has been deceived, and that at any time in the 19th century or before the last war this House would not have tolerated it, but would have insisted on an inquiry to find out with whom the responsibility for deception rested. But it seems that we have now reached a position in which it


is all right to say or do anything, and that it is all right to bamboozle people in order to get a vote and give the impression that your policy is approved——

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order——

Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. Member is obstructing.

Mr. Hogg: I am not to be put down. The hon. Baronet has now definitely stated that people have been bamboozled in order to get a vote and——

Mr. Driberg: That is a bogus point of Order.

Mr. Hogg: It is for the Chair to rule whether it is or not. You have, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, said that I was right in part before——

Mr. Bevan: No such thing.

Mr. Hogg: —and I am asking you, Sir, to Rule whether, a charge of personal dishonesty having been made——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I said that the hon. Member was right in part in that it would be right in certain circumstances to put down a substantive Motion, but I have not ruled that the hon. Baronet has made any personal charge against the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary. If he made any such suggestion it would be quite out of Order.

Mr. Hogg: I submit, Sir, that whatever may have been the case when I rose to put a point of Order just now, the hon. Baronet has now, in the hearing of the House, deliberately made a charge of dishonesty in the last part of his speech. I ask the hon. Baronet: does he, or does he not, make that charge?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In my opinion, the hon. Baronet made no such charge.

Mr. George Hall: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Bevan: May I ask you to rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there has been obstruction by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in order to prevent a speech being made in this House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. George Hall: In view of the very serious charges which the hon. Baronet has made, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask you whether he ought not to have given previous notice to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that such charges would be made against them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That certainly would have been desirable.

Sir R. Acland: The coming on of this Debate was only known about 1 p.m. to-day and an assurance that the facts I am stating are true was only given to me between 3 and 4 o'clock this afternoon, and I wanted to take the first opportunity to put them before the House. If there is a serious charge I would be willing to put down a substantive Motion if there is an indication that other hon. Members in the House would be willing to associate themselves with me. If that were so, I should be glad to put down a Motion. However, I want to read part of a telegram which I have just received. I will read only a part because of the shortness of time. It states:
We are surprised at the unjustified postponement of negotiations because of obstinacy regarding the reduction of numbers of representatives, and especially regarding the request that only S.K.E. representatives"—
that is Communists—
should attend.
This telegram, sent to the Regent of Greece, was signed by Partsalides, Secretary-General of E.A.M., who is a Communist, Tsirimokos, recognised leader of E.L.D., Gavriledes, recognised leader of the Agrarians, and Stratis, recognised leader of S.K.E., all of whom continue to associate with E.A.M. in spite of the Foreign Secretary's remarks that they were flaking away.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Six o'Clock.